Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16762 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                   &
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(CRL.) NO. 189 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          XXXXXXXXXX
          XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX


          BY ADVS.
          V.A.SATHEESH
          V.T.MADHAVANUNNI


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, PAYYAVOOR P.O., KANNUR
          DISTRICT-670633.

    3     XXXXXXXXXX
          XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl.) No.189 of 2021 [S]       2




         K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JJ.
       ---------------------------------------------
               W.P.(Crl.) No.189 of 2021 [S]
       ---------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 11th day of August 2021

                                JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

The writ petition is one filed for a writ of habeas

corpus to produce the daughter of the 3rd respondent. Both

the petitioner and the alleged detenue are married. The

petitioner claims to be estranged from his wife and also

asserts that the alleged detenue's marriage is also on

the rocks. The petitioner professes 'deep love' for the

alleged detenue, which is objected to by the

3rd respondent, for reason of which she is kept under

illegal detention.

2. We directed the 2nd respondent to get a

statement from the alleged detenue without interference

of the family members. The statement is placed on record.

The alleged detenue admits that there were some

differences of opinion between herself and her husband,

as is common in any marriage, which were also patched up.

The petitioner and the detenue were neighbours, who

offered solace when there were differences with her

husband. It is also stated that on the instigation of the

petitioner and his wife there was a complaint submitted

before the Irikoor Police Station against the detenue's

husband. Later, the detenue is said to have willingly

gone to the house of her parents, where she was residing.

The detenue also submits that while she was attending a

computer course from her parental residence, the

petitioner had forcefully, with threats levelled against

her child, taken her to his residence and molested her,

several times. It is also alleged that there had been

instances where she was threatened and photos taken in a

compromising position. He is also said to have sent those

photos to the relatives of her husband. On 10.07.2021 her

husband took the detenue to his own house, when the

petitioner filed a petition before the Payyavur Police

Station alleging forceful abduction of the detenue. He

has also been constantly harassing her. There are threats

levelled against the life of the detenue's child by the

petitioner, which forced her family to shift to Ernakulam

for two weeks.

3. We find that there are allegations of

cognizable offences committed by the petitioner against

the alleged detenue, who is said to be living at her own

freewill with her husband. Though the statement is

recorded on our direction, in a habeas corpus petition

and the intention was to elicit information as to whether

there was any illegal detention; which we find to be

absent, there are cognizable offences revealed from the

statement recorded. The statement is a signed statement

recorded by a Senior Civil Police Officer. In such

circumstances, we direct the 2nd respondent-Station House

Officer to register an FIR under the Criminal Procedure

Code and proceed with the investigation in accordance

with law. We make it clear that our direction is only to

register an FIR and carry out investigation, which shall

be independent of any observation made by us in this

judgment. We clarify so, since the direction may not be

taken as a finding on the allegations and there need be

no undue force or pressure attached, since the direction

to register an FIR emanates from the High Court.

With the above observation, we reject the habeas

corpus petition. We also direct the Registry not to issue

the certified copy of the judgment to anyone other than

the parties in the above writ petition. We also direct

that the name of the parties be masked or smudged and not

displayed on websites accessible to the public.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

sp/11/08/2021

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AND ALBHI BIJU.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AND ALBHI BIJU.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE DATED 20.7.2021.