Sruthi Mohan vs The City Police Commissioner

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