Kerala High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous case filed by an alleged history sheeter seeking quashing of first information report (‘FIR’) registered against him for obstructing the police from performing their official duties, punishable under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, J. held that under the guise of surveillance, the police cannot engage in late-night visits or forcibly enter the homes of history-sheeters.
Background
The crime against the accused was registered based on the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, stating that on 03-04-2025, as part of a night check on Rowdy History Sheeters, he, along with the police party, had visited the accused’s residence around 01:30 a.m. to verify his presence. Upon arrival, the police personnel allegedly directed the accused to open the door. However, the accused reportedly refused to comply, and instead, abused and intimidated the police officers, thereby obstructing them from performing their official duties.
The accused’s version of the incident was different. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated in a Protection of Children from Sexual offences (‘POCSO’) case by the Police, from which he was later acquitted after a full-fledged trial. Following his acquittal, he had raised complaints with the State Police Chief, alleging foul play in the registration of the said case. This, according to him, resulted in animosity from the police, who began filing false cases against him for traffic violations and dangerous driving.
He further alleged that he started receiving frequent calls from the police enquiring about his whereabouts. On 03-04-2025, at around 12:58 a.m., he received a call instructing him to stand outside his house. He complied but found no one was present. Later that morning, he received another call asking him to report at the Police Station. When he reported as directed, he was allegedly subjected to torture by the Sub Inspector without any provocation. Immediately thereafter, he filed writ petition complaining of police harassment. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to conduct an enquiry into the complaint. The accused contended that his implication in the present crime was a retaliatory measure to derail the inquiry initiated pursuant to the Court’s direction.
Issue
Whether the police have got the authority to visit the residences of history sheeters as part of surveillance.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that the right to freedom of movement and to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed without the backing of valid law. It observed that the Kerala Police Manual, being merely a set of administrative guidelines intended to regulate the conduct of police personnel, does not have the force of law and cannot be equated with a statutory provision.
Nonetheless, the Court considered it relevant to refer to the general instructions on surveillance contained in the Police Manual, for contextual understanding, and noted that what is permitted under the relevant provisions is merely ‘informal watching’ of history-sheeters and a ‘close watch’ over individuals with a known criminal background. Undoubtedly, neither of these expressions authorizes domiciliary visits during nighttime. In this context, the Court referred to Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10, wherein the Supreme Court had struck down a specific provision in the U.P. Police Regulations that permitted night-time domiciliary visits, holding it unconstitutional.
The Court held that the police have no authority to knock on the doors of suspected persons or history-sheeters under the pretext of surveillance. It emphasised that the concept of ‘home’ extends beyond its physical structure, embodying a space of existential, emotional, and social significance. In essence, the Court observed, “every man’s house is his castle or temple,” and the sanctity of one’s home cannot be violated by intrusive actions such as knocking at odd hours. The Court further stated that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, and dignity is non-negotiable. This reasoning led to the clear conclusion that the police, under the guise of surveillance, cannot engage in late-night visits or forcibly enter the homes of history-sheeters.
The Court further observed that, under Section 39 of the Kerala Police Act, all individuals are required to comply with lawful directions issued by police officers in the discharge of their duties under the Act. However, the Court categorically stated that knocking on the door of a history-sheeter at midnight and demanding that he step outside his house cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a ‘lawful direction.’ As such, the accused could not be prosecuted under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act for his refusal to comply with such an instruction.
The Court clarified that, even if it were true that the petitioner had used derogatory language or issued threats during the interaction, such conduct might constitute a different offence, but would not attract the specific charge currently invoked against him.
In light of the above findings, the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against the accused.
[Prasath C v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC No. 3751 of 2025, decided on 19-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI, MUHAMMED RIFA P.M., EHLAS HALEEMA C.K, SALMAN FARIS, GAYATHRI ASHISH NAI
For Respondents: M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
