Kerala High Court Notifies Former DGP on Insignia Use
The Kerala High Court has issued a notice to former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J Thachankary regarding a petition that questions his continued use of the official ‘Silver Star’ DGP insignia on his personal vehicle post-retirement. This development occurred on Monday during the hearing of the case CT Muneer v. State of Kerala & Another.
Justice G Girish, presiding over the matter, has also instructed the State to provide further details and instructions concerning the issue. The case was brought forward by activist CT Muneer, who is challenging a decision made on May 14 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thamarassery. The magistrate had previously dismissed Muneer’s private complaint at the outset.
According to Muneer’s petition, Thachankary, who officially retired from his position as DGP on July 31, 2023, continues to use the DGP insignia on his private vehicle—a privilege that is reserved exclusively for serving police chiefs. The petitioner highlighted an incident from April 22, where Thachankary was reportedly seen at a vigilance court in Kottayam with the insignia displayed on his vehicle. This allegedly gave the impression that he was still the serving DGP, thereby enjoying unwarranted respect and privileges.
The petitioner argued that such actions could constitute offences of personation and cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Despite attempts to address the issue with local authorities, including the Mukkam Police and the Superintendent of Police in Kozhikode, no First Information Report (FIR) was filed. This inaction led the petitioner to file a private complaint with the magistrate.
However, the magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating that the allegations did not prima facie establish offences under Sections 204 (personating a public servant) and 319(2) (cheating by personation) of the BNS. The court observed that merely displaying the official insignia, without any evidence of Thachankary exercising or attempting to exercise official powers, did not constitute an offence under Section 204 BNS. Furthermore, the magistrate ruled that the elements of Section 319(2) BNS were not met, as there was no evidence of dishonest inducement or wrongful gain.
More Read
In light of the dismissal, the petitioner has approached the High Court, arguing that the magistrate’s decision was mechanical and lacked a thorough examination of whether the facts disclosed any cognizable offence or warranted an investigation. Advocates PV Anoop, Phijo Pradeesh Philip, Junaid VS, and M Abhijith Krishnan represented the petitioner in the proceedings.
