JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the State Police Complaints Authority in O.P.No.316 of 2013, whereby the State Police Chief was directed to look into the complaint made by the 4th respondent against the petitioners who have submitted a final report incorporating charge under Sec. 308 IPC against the 4th respondent. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are Police Officers in the State Police Department. At the time of complaint, 1st petitioner was working as Sub Inspector at Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, and the 2nd petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of Police at CBCID (Economic Offence-I) at Thiruvananthapuram. The 4th respondent filed Ext.P2 complaint before the State Police Complaints Authority against the petitioners. The 1st respondent proceeded in the matter, which, according to the petitioners, without jurisdiction since there is a clear delineation of power made under Sec.110(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and the State Police Complaints Authority is only vested with powers to consider complaints against the Police Officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police, and against the officers of other rank in grave cases of sexual harassment of women in custody, death, grievous hurt, rape etc. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, the jurisdiction in all other cases are conferred on the Police Complaints Authority at District level. That apart, it is submitted that, the 1st respondent denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW2 and to make final submissions in the matter, and therefore, Ext.P1 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. Accordingly, the recommendation made to the State Police Chief to take action against the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. It is also contended that, the entire action of the State Police Complaints Authority is violative of the basic rights and guarantees extended to the petitioners under the Constitution of India and the laws, to have a fair trial in the complaint adjudicated by the Authority. 3. I have heard Sri. K. Abdul Jawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi K.M., learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 4. 3. I have heard Sri. K. Abdul Jawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi K.M., learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 4. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon Sec.110 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, whereby the Police Complaints Authority at the State and District level are constituted, which read thus: “ 110. Police Complaints Authority.— (1) The Government shall constitute a State Police Complaints Authority for examining and inquiring the,-- (i) complaints on all types of misconduct against Police Officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police; (ii) grave complaints against officers of other ranks in respect of sexual harassment of women in custody or causing death of any person or inflicting grievous hurt or any person or rape etc. (2) The State Authority shall consist of the following members, namely:-- (i) a retired Judge of a High Court who shall be the Chairperson of the Authority; (ii) an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government; (iii) an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police; (iv) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from a three member panel of retired suitable officers not below the rank of Inspector General of Police furnished by the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission; and (v) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from a three member panel of retired suitable District Judges furnished by the State Lok Ayuktha. (3) The Government shall constitute the Police Complaints Authority at district level for examining and inquiring the complaints against Police Officers of and up to the said rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (4) The District Authority shall consist of he following members, namely:-- (i) a retired District Judge, who shall be the Chairperson; (ii) the District Collector; and (iii) the District Superintendent of Police: Provided that the Chairperson of one District Authority may be appointed as the Chairperson of more than one District Authorities. (5) The terms and conditions of service, salary of the members of the State Authority and District Authorities and the procedure of the authorities shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The terms and conditions of service, salary of the members of the State Authority and District Authorities and the procedure of the authorities shall be such as may be prescribed. (6) Government shall, in consultation with the authority or authorities, establish and give all necessary facilities for their proper functioning. (7) The State Authority and the District Level Authorities shall, on conducting inquiries, have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely :-- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; and (d) any other matter as may be prescribed. (8) All officers of the Government shall render all possible assistance to the authority for ensuring the production of records necessary for the functioning of the Complaints Authorities, examination of the records and provision of expert assistance in needed matters, etc. (9) All concerned officers shall be bound to carry out the recommendations given by the authority in respect of matters of initiation of department level inquiry, registration of criminal case etc. against a Police Officer”. 5. Relying upon clause (ii) of Sec.110(1), it is submitted that, the subject issue relates to framing of charge against the 4th respondent under Sec.308 IPC and the mere framing of charge will not confer any power on the State Police Complaints Authority to entertain a complaint of the nature submitted by the 4th respondent. It is also pointed out, it was on the basis of receiving information from Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur, the Grade Assistant Sub Inspector of Punalur Police Station took statement of the defacto complainant on 25.09.2012 against the 4th respondent, and Crime No.1385/13 was registered. The case of the defacto complainant was that, on 24.09.2012, he was attacked by the 4th respondent and attempted to inflict a cut injury on his neck with a knife which he warded off by the right arm and he sustained a lacerated injury on his right thumb. First petitioner started investigation in the matter and arrested the 4th respondent on 04.10.2012 and produced before the Magistrate on the same day itself. She was remanded in judicial custody by the orders of the Court. First petitioner started investigation in the matter and arrested the 4th respondent on 04.10.2012 and produced before the Magistrate on the same day itself. She was remanded in judicial custody by the orders of the Court. Therefore, there was no deliberate mala fide intention in the investigation conducted by the 1st petitioner. 6. Subsequently, by an order of the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kottarakkara, the investigation was taken over by the 2nd petitioner, who upon investigation found the allegations true and hence submitted a final report. The Magistrate took cognizance in the matter, which is pending trial before the trial court. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the State Police Complaints Authority has no authority or power to enquire into the very same subject matter. It was based on the said submissions, objections were submitted before the State Police Complaints Authority. Anyhow, the Police Complaints Authority examined the 4th respondent as PW1, and she was cross-examined by the petitioners, evident from Ext.P7 deposition. It is contended that, during the cross-examination, the 4th respondent has denied her earlier statements made before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer was examined as PW2, which, according to the petitioners, behind their back, and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to cross-examine PW2. But, it is submitted that, petitioners could not appear on 22.06.2015 when the matter was posted for cross- examination due to compelling law and order duties and their request for adjournment was declined. Therefore, it is contended that, Ext.P1 order is passed by the State Police Complaints Authority overlooking the valuable rights available to the petitioners to cross- examine the witnesses. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, the Police Complaints Authority have looked into the complaint submitted by the 4th respondent and has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings, and it was after appreciating the rival contentions, the Authority has arrived at the finding that, the charge framed against the 4th respondent under Sec.308 IPC cannot be sustained. It is also evident from the documents produced as well as the findings rendered by the State Police Complaints Authority, that the wound suffered by the defacto complainant allegedly as cut injury is just a scar on the right thumb, and it was accordingly the Authority has found that framing of charge against the 4th respondent under Sec.308 IPC cannot be sustained. Moreover, the enquiry officer's report was also taken into account by the Police Complaints Authority and it was on the basis of the evidence adduced and the documents available, the findings were rendered and directed to conduct enquiry against the petitioners. 8. Apart from the aforesaid factual circumstances, the paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the State Police Complaints Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the petitioners since they are Police Officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police, and therefore, there is a clear bar contained under Sec.110(1)(ii) of Act, 2011. However, on a reading of clause (ii) of Sec.110(1), it is clear that the State Police Complaints Authority is also vested with powers to entertain grave complaints against officers of other ranks in respect of sexual harassment of women in custody, or causing death of any person or inflicting grievous hurt on any person or rape, etc. Therefore, in my considered view, it can never be said that there is ouster of jurisdiction to the State Police Complaints Authority from entertaining a complaint against Police Officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police. 9. Anyhow, on appreciating the rival contentions, the State Police Complaints Authority has found that framing of charge under Sec.308 IPC against the 4th respondent can never be sustained, since the injury suffered by the defacto complainant was just a scar on the right thumb. Therefore, in my considered view, even going by clause (ii) of Sec.110(1), the State Police Complaints Authority is vested with power to entertain a complaint in which a grievous hurt was suffered by a complainant. It would appear that grievous hurt referred to therein can never be confined as a physical or bodily injury alone suffered by a person, but, it will take in any serious mental injury also. The Chambers 20th Century dictionary defines 'grieve' to mean; to cause grief or pain of mind to; to make sorrowful; to vex; to inflict bodily pain or do bodily harm to, etc. The Chambers 20th Century dictionary defines 'grieve' to mean; to cause grief or pain of mind to; to make sorrowful; to vex; to inflict bodily pain or do bodily harm to, etc. Likewise, 'hurt' is defined to mean; to cause pain to; to damage; to injure; to wound, as the feelings, to give pain etc. etc. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that the State Authority has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction or has exceeded its power by adjudicating the complaint in question. 10. Going by the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is clear, for a very minor injury suffered by the defacto complainant in the crime, a grave offence under Sec.308 IPC was framed against the 4th respondent, which can never be said to be an innocent action on the part of the petitioners, and definitely such conduct on the part of the petitioners has caused grievous hurt to the complainant. Moreover, State Police Complaints Authority is not vested with any powers to entertain any appeal from the orders passed by the District Police Complaints Authority. Therefore, it can never be said that the State Police Complaints Authority, a superior authority, has exceeded its jurisdiction to exercise the power conferred under Sec.110(1)(ii) of Act, 2011. So also, it would appear from the provision that such delineation of power is made in order to regulate the flow of complaints to the superior authority, and which can never be termed as an exercise to oust the power of the State authority. Above all these aspects, petitioners have participated in the adjudication proceedings without any objection in that regard, and therefore, at a later point of time, they are not at liberty to turn around and challenge the power of the authority to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in that regard can never be sustained under law. 11. The rest of the aspects are founded on factual circumstances and the Authority has rested its findings on the basis of the pleadings put forth by the parties, the documents produced, and after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings. 11. The rest of the aspects are founded on factual circumstances and the Authority has rested its findings on the basis of the pleadings put forth by the parties, the documents produced, and after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings. Moreover, on a reading of Ext.P1 order, it is clear, the State Police Complaints Authority has arrived at certain prima facie findings and has directed the State Police Chief to conduct enquiry into the matter and initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, in that process, petitioners are entitled to get opportunity and are at liberty to take up all contentions in the enquiry. 12. Taking into account the cluster of factual and legal aspects, I have no hesitation to hold that, petitioners have not made out any case justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the 1st respondent in passing Ext.P1 order. The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.