Custodial Torture | Complaints Authority Can Recommend Criminal Case Even Against Retired Officers U/S 110 Kerala Police Act: High Court

Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the order of the District Police Complaints Authority, Alappuzha that dismissed the writ petitioner's complaint alleging custodial torture.

According to the petitioner, in 2013, he was allegedly physically assaulted inside a police station when he had gone there along with his mother and his sister as per the direction of two police officers that visited his house.

The police officers had accused him of treating his wife with cruelty and destroying her gold ornaments, and he was manhandled and forced to execute an agreement transferring 2 cents of land to his wife.

The petitioner further contends that he was made to undergo custodial torture and forced to execute the agreement based on a false complaint. Moreover, he says the physical assault resulting in hearing problems and other issues in one of his ears.

In such a situation, the petitioner approached senior police officials requesting action and for registration of a crime against the officers who tortured him. He also filed a complaint before the Complaints Authority. Though an inquiry was conducted, the complaint was dismissed.

In the report, the DySP had stated that the petitioner's wife had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty and misappropriation of property. It was further stated that as per the direction of one of the respondent police officers, the petitioner and his family came to the police station and executed an agreement transferring property to his wife. Since this agreement was not honoured, the petitioner filed the complaint before the Authority apprehending police action.

Thereafter, further inquiry was conducted and the report even noted that the criminal complaint of the petitioner's wife was quashed by the High Court but no fresh inquiry was conducted despite directions.

The Authority exonerated both the accused officers. With respect to one officer, it found that it had no jurisdiction over a retired employee. With regard to the second officer, it remarked that primary allegations were against the other officer.

Stating that a false report was submitted in order to protect the erring officers, the petitioner came before the High Court seeking to set aside the report and for a fresh inquiry. He also sought registration of a criminal case against the respondent police officers for custodial torture as well as compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

Referring to Section 110 of the Act, the Court remarked that sub-section (1)(ii) gives jurisdiction over "grave complaints" against officers, including instances of sexual harassment of women in custody, custodial death, rape, or the infliction of grievous hurt.

The Court was of the opinion that the Authority committed an error in hastily closing the case. It was further opined that the Authority reliance on Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment, and Appeal Rules, 1958 not to proceed against the retired officer was also incorrect.

“Instead of conducting a proper inquiry and recommending the registration of a crime, the Authority relied on Rules 2 and 6 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment, and Appeal Rules, 1958, and the decision in Balachandran Pillai v. State of Kerala [1994 (1) KLT 258] to claim it lacked jurisdiction over retired personnel. This is a legal error. While those provisions govern departmental inquiries for serving personnel, they do not preclude the Authority from directing the registration of a criminal case for custodial torture or the infliction of grievous hurt under Section 110(1)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, this Court clarified in Gopakumar K.S. and Another v. State Police Complaints Authority and Others [2019 (3) KLT 22] that "grievous hurt" includes serious mental injury,” the Court remarked.

It was also observed that the Authority did not seriously consider the allegation regarding coerced execution of land transfer agreement, which was in violation of DGP's circulars.

The Court set aside the Authority's order. It also directed the Authority to conduct a detailed de novo inquiry based on the evidence produced to pass appropriate orders and to register a criminal case against the retired police officer (4^th respondent):

“The Authority is directed to conduct a detailed de novo inquiry based on the evidence produced…and pass appropriate orders, particularly regarding the 4th respondent's violation of official circulars and the alleged physical assault. If the allegations are found true, the Authority shall exercise its power under Section 110(9) of the Act, 2011, to recommend the registration of a criminal case against the 4th respondent.”

Thus, it disposed of the plea.

Case No: WP(C)No.36543 of 2018

Case Title: V.V. Rajesh v. The District Police Complaint Authority and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 226

Counsel for the petitioner: Anil Kumar M. Sivaraman

Counsel for the respondents: B. Mohanlal, K.S. Santhi, Gibi C. George

Click to Read/Download Judgment