High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/318/2015dismissed

Saleena K v. Superintendant Of Police

2015-07-21Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan6 pages

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 21ST DAY OF JULY 2015/30TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 318 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- SALEENA K, AGED 32 YEARS D/O.LATE MAMMAD KOYA, KAPPAN HOUSE, CHERUR P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL SRI.ABDUL SHUKOOR MUNDAMBRA RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 001

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.

3. KUTTAN MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, INDIANOOR POST, KOTTAKKAL KOORIYAD ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.

4. BABU M.

S/O.KUTTAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, INDIANOOR POST KOTTAKKAL, KOORIYAD ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.

5. RAJU M.

S/O.KUTTAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, INDIANOOR POST KOTTAKKAL, KOORIYAD ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.

6. SUMESH M.

S/O.KUTTAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, INDIANOOR POST KOTTAKKAL, KOORIYAD ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503. R1&2 BY ADV. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.ASAF ALI. R3-R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT KOCHMOL KODUVATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS

WP(Crl.).No. 318 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

---------------------------------------- EXT.P1 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE DATED 27.5.2015 ISSUED BY SUB-REGISTRAR, THIRURANGADI. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

NIL ------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

The petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the alleged detenue Muhammed Shafeeque.M @ Jinesh.M and to set him at liberty.

2. Allegation is that the said person is illegally confined by his father and brothers, who are cited as respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, herself and the alleged detenue were in love and they have decided to get married. They got acquainted when they studied together for the Engineering diploma course. It is also mentioned that the alleged detenue was attracted to Islam and he had undergone a course from an institution at Kozhikode, and that he had already embraced Islam religion, and also got his name changed as Muhammed Shafeeque.M. It is also

pointed out that a notice of intention of the marriage to be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was submitted to the Marriage Officer, Tirurangadi, as evidenced from Ext.P1, on 27.05.2015. But it is alleged that, when the detenue went to his house, the respondents 3 to 6 had illegally detained him against his free will. It is alleging that the respondents 3 to 6 are illegally detaining the alleged detenue, this writ petition is filed.

3. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 3 to 6. The alleged detenue is produced before this Court. When we interacted with the alleged detenue, he admitted about the affair with the petitioner. It is also admitted that he had undergone a religious course for the purpose of embracing the religion of Islam, as alleged in the writ petition. It is also conceded that Ext.P1 notice regarding intimation of the marriage was given before the Marriage Officer, Thirurangadi. But according to the alleged detenue, it was only at the indusion of the petitioner that he had conceded for such

steps. According to him, subsequently he had a retraction of mind and he is not willing to continue any relationship with the petitioner at present. It is said that he had already reconverted to Hindu religion by solemnizing 'Shudhi Karma'. It is emphatically denied that he is under any illegal confinement of respondents 3 to 6, as alleged.

4. From the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we are convinced that the allegation of illegal confinement is totally baseless and it is evident that the alleged detenue is staying along with respondents 3 to 6 on his own wish and will. Therefore we find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction vested on this Court for issuing any writ of Habeas Corpus.

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed and the alleged detenue is set at liberty to go along with the respondents 3 to 6, in accordance with his desire.

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