← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/197/2015dismissed

Raj Rahul v. The District Police Chief, Kollam

2015-05-20Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015/30TH VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 197 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ RAJ RAHUL AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, KAZHCHAVAYALIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKAM, CHAVARA VILLAGE KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS:

------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN. 691 001.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN.691 001.

3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 624.

4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 302.

5. SMT. SARAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, KUZHIVILA HOUSE, PANAYAM (P.O), PERINADU KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 601.

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-052015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P (Crl.) No.197/2015.

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF MONEY DATED 21.04.2015 ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, CHAVARA. P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.05.2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL True copy P.A. To Judge

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

& K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P (Crl.) No. 197 OF 2015 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Abdul Rehim, J:

The 5th respondent appeared through counsel. Miss. Fincy Mariam George, the alleged detenue, is produced. We interacted with her. Categoric statement is to the effect that she is not in any illegal confinement against her will by the 5th respondent, as alleged. She expressed her desire to go with the 5th respondent. 2.

Under the above mentioned circumstances we do not find any merit in the above writ petition, which is filed based on the allegation that the alleged detenue is illegally detained against her will.

3.

Hence the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

Sd/- K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

True copy P.A. to Judge