ABHISHEK SINGH Vs. AMIT MEENA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein, who was the Sub Collector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram, had preferred Annexure -VIII representation before the District Collector, Malappuram, complaining about harassment from his Junior Officer, who is none other than the petitioner herein. In fact, Annexure -VIII does not reveal any cognizable offence at all. Immediately on getting Annexure -VIII, the District Collector, Malappuram forwarded Annexure -VIII to the District Police Chief, Malappuram, thereby requesting for urgent action and with a direction to register a First Information Report immediately. On getting Annexure -CRL. VIII, even without recording the statement of the 1st respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna registered Annexure -X First Information Report, thereby registering Crime No. 1210 of 2014, for the offences under Sec. 506(i) IPC and Sec. 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act.

(2.) The narrations made in Annexure -VIII do not contain necessary ingredients to bring out any such offence as mentioned in 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as it then stood. Subsequently, the Apex Court has struck down Sec. 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as unconstitutional.

(3.) Annexure -X clearly shows that the crime was registered based on the directions issued by the District Collector on the basis of Annexure -VIII, which was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna.