The Kerala High Court has recently upheld a lower court’s decision requiring three police officers to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to Congress leader Shajir Arafath and his family, following allegations of assault and the wrongful seizure of a vehicle in 2010. The case, referenced as KK Biju & ors v Shajir Arafath & ors, was presided over by Justice Easwaran S.
The decision comes after the officers, Circle Inspector KK Biju, Additional Sub-Inspector P Baburajan, and Sub-Inspector MA Kabeer, appealed a Kozhikode appellate court’s ruling that favored Arafath, his brother K Mujeeb Rehman, and their mother KP Jameela. The High Court found no grounds to reverse the appellate court’s decision.
The officers were implicated following an incident in February 2010, where Arafath allegedly questioned a traffic enforcement action, leading to an FIR against him under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the omission to give notice or information to a public servant. The officers then reportedly arrived at his residence with a crane to forcibly seize a vehicle. When Arafath’s brother requested a receipt, he was allegedly assaulted by the police, and their mother fainted during the altercation, requiring hospitalization.
The High Court noted that a departmental inquiry into the officers’ conduct found them guilty of misconduct. Although penalties from the inquiry were later dropped on appeal, the findings of the inquiry remained unquestioned.
Initially, a civil court dismissed Arafath’s suit, deeming it barred by limitation. This decision was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court awarding compensation. The police officers contended that their actions were in good faith as part of their official duties and argued that the suit was time-barred. However, the High Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the case involved more than just vehicle seizure; it included allegations of assault and abuse of authority.
More Read
Justice Easwaran S emphasized that the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year period for filing civil suits, supersedes any conflicting state legislation, such as the Kerala Police Act. The Court also clarified that the actions of the police did not qualify as duties performed in the discharge of their official responsibilities, given the lack of justification for the vehicle seizure.
Furthermore, the Court applied the ‘preponderance of probability’ standard typical in civil cases, noting that strict proof of assault was not necessary in light of the circumstances. As a result, the appellate court’s decision was upheld.
Representing the police officers were Advocates VV Surendran and PA Harish, while Senior Counsel Shyam Padman, assisted by Advocate Laya Mary Joseph, represented Arafath and his family. Advocate Aswin Sethumadhavan appeared for the State.
More Read
For additional details, refer to the judgment document titled K.K.BIJU vs SHAJIR ARAFATH from the Kerala High Court, available on LawLens.
