High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/434/2015dismissed as withdrawn

Safiya P.Y v. State Of Kerala

2015-11-13Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 434 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------- SAFIYA P.Y AGED 53 YEARS W/O.SIDHI C.A., CHATHAMKOTTIL HOUSE, WADAKANCHERY PO THRISSUR-680 582.

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR.

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERPU, THRISSUR.

6. LIBU KOTTAPADIKKAL C/O.KASIM, VALIYAKATH, HEALTH CENTRE VIA OORAKAM THRISSUR. NOW RESIDING AT ORKID APARTMENTS SREEKRISHNA COLLEGE ROAD, KOVAIPUTHUR, COIMBATORE TAMILNADU.

7. NASEEMA V.K.

W/O.LIBU KOTTAPADIKKAL, VALIYAKATH HEALTH CENTRE VIA OORAKAM THRISSUR. NOW RESIDING AT ORKID APARTMENTS SREEKRISHNA COLLEGE ROAD, KOVAIPUTHUR, COIMBATORE TAMILNADU GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.EGGY N.ELIAS.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl.).No. 434 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DT 16-9-2014. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.

sl.

C.K.Abdul Rehim & Mary Joseph, JJ.

==================================== W.P.(Crl.)No.434 of 2015 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Rehim, J.

1. The above case is instituted seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus raising allegation that the petitioner's daughter is under illegal confinement of respondents 6 and 7. Eventhough this court was not inclined to admit the writ petition based on the arguments advanced, notice on admission was issued to the respondents 6 and 7 through speed post. The Registry had endorsed that the notice sent to the respondents 6 and 7 were returned unserved stating that the address is insufficient.

2. Today when the case is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the address of the respondents 6 and 7 already furnished, is the only address known to the petitioner. He seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move a

W.P.(Crl.)No.434 of 2015 -:2:- fresh petition, if circumstances warrants, on furnishing the exact address of respondents 6 and 7.

3. Permission is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to liberty reserved as mentioned above. C.K.Abdul Rehim, Judge.

Mary Joseph, Judge.

sl.