Kerala High Court upholds ₹5 lakh compensation awarded to Congress leader Shajir Arafath for police excesses

The Kerala High Court recently upheld a trial court order directing three police officers to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to Congress leader Shajir Arafath and his family in a case alleging assault and wrongful seizure of vehicle in 2010 [KK Biju & ors v Shajir Arafath & ors]

Justice Easwaran S dismissed an appeal filed by the Circle Inspector KK Biju, Additional Sub-Inspector P Baburajan and Sub-Inspector MA Kabeer, challenging the decree passed by a Kozhikode appellate court, granting compensation to Arafath, his brother K Mujeeb Rehman and their mother KP Jameela.

The Court observed that the officers failed to explain the seizure of Arafath's vehicle in connection with an offence under Section 176 (omission to give notice or information to a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It also took note of the departmental enquiry conducted against the officers which found them guilty of misconduct.

"Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the penalty imposed against them has been dropped on appeal by the appellants, the fact remains that the findings in Ext.A15 enquiry report stands unimpeached," the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal and that there was no reason to interfere with the appellate court's finding.

Arafath along with his brother and mother had earlier approached a civil court accusing the police of harassing and assaulting them after a dispute over traffic enforcement action.

In February 2010, Arafat had allegedly questioned a traffic enforcement action in Kozhikode. This had led to the registration of an FIR against him under Section 176 of IPC.

Following the registration of the case, police officers arrived at their residence with a crane and forcefully seized a vehicle parked there.

When Arafath's brother asked for a receipt for the vehicle seizure, the police allegedly assaulted him. During the commotion, their mother fainted and had to be hospitalised.

Arafath and his family then approached a trial court seeking damages for the alleged assault and abuse of authority by the police but the trial court dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by limitation.

However, an appellate court later reversed the trial court's decision and awarded them compensation. The decision was then challenged before the High Court by the police officers.

In their appeal, the officers argued that the seizure was carried out in good faith as part of their official duty. They argued that the civil suit filed against them was barred by limitation.

The High Court rejected their contentions and said that the case did not merely involve the seizure of a vehicle but pertained to a series of wrongful acts by the police, including assault and misuse of authority.

The Court further said that a civil suit seeking compensation for wrongful acts is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three year limitation period. It said a State enactment such as the Kerala Police Act cannot override the limitation period prescribed under the Central law.

It also held that the allegations against the officers could not be treated as acts performed in discharge of their official duties as the they failed to justify why the vehicle had to be seized in connection with the offence.

Referring to the 'preponderance of probability' standard used for deciding civil cases, where strict proof of assault is not always insisted upon depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court rejected the officer's contention that the assault allegations were not proved due to lack of strict medical evidence.

Accordingly, the Court found upheld the appellate court decision.

Advocates VV Surendran and PA Harish appeared for the officers.

Senior counsel Shyam Padman assisted by advocate Laya Mary Joseph appeared for Arafath and his family,

Advocate Aswin Sethumadhavan appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]