Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun quashed the First Information Report and all further proceedings in a case registered under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The Court held that the act of the police in knocking on a citizen’s door at midnight and demanding him to come outside cannot be construed as a “lawful direction.” Observing that such action violates the right to privacy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court concluded that the ingredients of the offence under Section 117(e) were not satisfied and consequently allowed the petition.

The case originated from Crime No. 267 of 2025 registered at the Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam. The complaint alleged that during a late-night surveillance operation on 3 April 2025, the police visited the residence of the petitioner around 01:30 a.m. as part of routine checks on individuals listed as rowdy sheeters. The police, upon reaching the residence, reportedly instructed the petitioner to open the door. The petitioner allegedly refused to comply and proceeded to abuse and intimidate the officers, leading to the registration of the FIR for obstruction under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act.

Also Read: Unregistered Sale Deeds Based On Revoked Power Of Attorney Cannot Confer Title | Supreme Court Restores Suit Over Disputed Land Transfer

The petitioner, however, contested this version of events. It was submitted that he had been acquitted in an earlier Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, which had been falsely foisted upon him by the Thoppumpady Police. Following the acquittal, the petitioner filed a complaint with the State Police Chief alleging misconduct by the officers involved in the original POCSO case. He asserted that the present charge was a retaliatory measure intended to thwart the enquiry into his complaint.

According to the petitioner, on the night of 3 April 2025, he received a phone call from the police around 12:58 a.m., asking him to stand outside his house. He complied but found no one present. Later that morning, he was called to the police station and allegedly subjected to custodial torture. In response, he filed W.P.(C) No. 15550 of 2025, which was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to conduct an enquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the midnight visit by the police infringed on his fundamental right to privacy and dignity. Citing Paragraph 265 of the Kerala Police Manual, it was argued that the police are permitted only to maintain an “informal watch” or, in certain cases, a “close watch” over history sheeters—neither of which authorizes unannounced domiciliary visits during the night. It was further submitted that such visits are neither contemplated under the statute nor justified in the circumstances, and therefore, any refusal by the petitioner to comply with instructions issued during such a visit could not constitute a punishable offence.

In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner’s name was included in the Rowdy History Sheet maintained at the Thoppumpady Police Station. It was claimed that the officers were merely performing their official duties when they called the petitioner and later visited his residence to confirm his presence. The refusal to obey a directive issued in furtherance of their official duty, coupled with intimidation, was said to attract the penal provisions of Section 117(e).

The Court recorded that the core issue was whether the police had authority to conduct midnight visits to the residence of individuals listed as history sheeters. It examined the relevant constitutional protections and administrative guidelines governing such conduct.

Citing Paragraph 265 of the Kerala Police Manual, the Court noted: “What is permitted by the provision is only, ‘informal watching’ of history sheeters and ‘close watch’ over those leading criminal existence. Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night.”

The Court referred to Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [1962 SCC OnLine SC 10], stating:
“The Apex Court had set aside the provision in the U.P. Police Regulations authorising domicile visits, finding the provision to be violative of the freedom and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Quoting Kharak Singh, the Court observed: “An intrusion into a man’s personal security and his right to sleep, which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence… did not need the commentary of recent history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of human rights.”

The Court then cited the later ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1], noting that: “Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home… and also connotes a right to be left alone.”

The Bench continued: “A person’s right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity and dignity is non-negotiable.”

Summarising its constitutional analysis, the Court stated:“It is thus beyond cavil that the police have no right to knock at the doors of suspected persons or history sheeters under the guise of surveillance.”

With respect to the legality of police instructions issued during the midnight visit, the Court found:
“Knocking on the doors of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful direction.”

As to the alleged intimidation by the petitioner, the Court observed: “If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he is presently charged with.”

Consequently, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act for refusing to comply with the direction issued by the police.

Also Read: Senior Citizens Cannot Be Forced To Litigate For Their Own Home | Bombay High Court Restores Eviction Of Son And Daughter-In-Law Under Welfare Act

If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, such conduct might attract some other offence, but not the offence with which he was presently charged.

For these reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed, and the Annexure A1 FIR along with all further proceedings in Crime No. 267 of 2025 of Thoppumpady Police Station were quashed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Ashik K. Mohamed Ali, Shri Muhammed Rifa P.M., Smt. Ehlas Haleema C.K., Shri Salman Faris, Smt. Gayathri Ashish Nair, Advocates

For the Respondents: Sri M.C. Ashi, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:44716

Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 3751 of 2025

Bench: Justice V.G. Arun

[Read/Download order]