Sanal Krishnan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Pazhayannur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/9TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 273 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- SANAL KRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, VELLIYOTTIL HOUSE, PARAKLAM, KELLEPPADOM P.O., PAZHAYANNUR, TALAPPALLY, THRISSUR - 680 587.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::
------------------------------------------------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 587.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIRCLE OFFICE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 587.
3. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS NADUVILE VEETTIL, KELLEPPADOM P.O., PAZHAYANNUR, TALAPPALLY, THRISSUR - 680 587.
R1-R2 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PS.S.ABDUL KAREEM THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS
WP(Crl.).No. 273 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1.
TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2.
TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION I.D NO.ALK0412049 OF DIVYAMOL G. ISSUED UNDER THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3.
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.06.2015 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ---------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS
C.K.ABDUL REHIM & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2015
JUDGMENT
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J This is an application filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of Ms.Divyamol.G, daughter of the third respondent, alleging that she is under the illegal custody of the third respondent, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The allegation in the petition was that Ms.Divyamol, aged 22 years was in love with the petitioner and they have decided to conduct marriage and she has already entrusted the Original Election I.D. Card for the purpose of giving notice of intention of marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. On knowing about the relationship, the third respondent has now illegally kept her under detention. So the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or such other writ or direction, commanding the respondents to produce the body of Miss.Divyamol.G, aged years, D/o Gopalakrishnan, before this Court and set her at liberty.
(ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.
3. On the basis of the allegation made on 22.06.2015, we have directed the first respondent to conduct discrete enquiry regarding the allegations of the petitioner and also depute a woman police officer, not in uniform, to record the statement of the alleged detenue and file a report along with the statement recorded of the detenue. Today, the first respondent has submitted a report along with the statement of the alleged detenue and also the present petitioner. It is seen from the statement of the detenue that though she was in love with the petitioner, now she had not intended to continue the friendship and her family members have decided to conduct her marriage and she is not under any illegal detention of anyone. None had threatened her and she
had withdrawn from the friendship with the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the statement that the I.D. Card and other documents given for the purpose of giving notice of intention of marriage under the Special Marriage Act have been returned to her by the petitioner. They also recorded the statement of the petitioner, in that, he had also reiterated the same things mentioned in the statement of the alleged detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that they decided to withdraw from their relationship and there is no necessity to issue any writ of Habeas Corpus as claimed. Under that circumstances we are convinced that the alleged detunue is not under the illegal detention of anyone, warranting interference of this Court issue a writ of Habeas Corpus as claimed by the petitioner.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE vs