Sruthi Mohan vs The City Police Commissioner

The petitioner herein gave a statement before the Kottiyam Police alleging matrimonial cruelty.

Ext.P2 is the statement recorded by a Woman Constable of the above Police Station. According to the petitioner, no further action has been taken thereof even though there was disclosure of non cognizable offence. According to the petitioner, that was purported to be on a premise that expert opinion of the Family Welfare Committee headed by the Chairman of the District Legal Services Committee was awaited.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court after submitting Ext.P3 complaint before the City Police Commissioner alleging inaction on the part of the Kottiyam Police in registering the crime.

Ext.P4 evidences submission of Ext.P3 application.

3. Considering the limited prayer sought and the relief that is proposed to be granted, I am not WP(C).No. 31386 of 2018

3

inclined to issue notice to the 3rd respondent.

4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me a communication No.38/18/RTI/M2 purported to be the reply received by the counsel for the petitioner from the Information Officer of the Kottiyam Police Station informing that crime could be registered only as per the expert opinion of the Family Welfare Committee.

5. The above committee was directed to be constituted by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma V. State of U.P. and another 2017 (4) KHC 163. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a subsequent decision in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another V. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others 2018 (4) KHC 508 (SC) had held that directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma's case in relation to offences registered under Section 498A and conferment of WP(C).No. 31386 of 2018

4

powers on the committee was erroneous. Accordingly, directions issued in Rajesh Sharma's case was modified.

Having regard to the above observations of the Three Judges Bench, it is made clear that the 2 nd respondent on the basis of the averments contained in the information conveyed by the petitioner shall proceed in accordance with law, if cognizable offence is made out, dehors the report of the Family Welfare Committee, as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

WP(C).No. 31386 of 2018

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE

ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE MEDICAL COLLEGE

HOSPITAL

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE

PETITIONER TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

18.9.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST

RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2018

ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST

RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

30.8.2018 SENT TO THE SUPERIOR OFFICER

OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Pn 27/09