Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1106 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(Crl.).No.10 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.CHAMI, UCHARAMKADAVU
COLONY, NAITHAKKODU, KANJIRAMPARA,
KARKIDAMKUNNU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SMT.SAIPOOJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM - 695010,
3 THE SUPERINTDENT OF POLICE,
KOLLAM RURAL, PIN - 691506.
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNIKKODU POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691508.
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691571.
6 AJIKUMAR, S/O. SUKUMARAPILLAI, AGE NOT KNOWN
THENGILAZHIKKATHU VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KURA P.O, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691557.
7 BINDU, W/O. AJIKUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN,
THENGILAZHIKKATHU VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KURA P.O, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691557.
R1-R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No.10 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 12th day of January, 2021
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Petitioner is before this Court claiming that the
daughter of respondents 6 and 7 is under illegal custody of
the respondents. Learned Government Pleader submits that
the very same detenue was the subject in W.P.(Crl)
No.318/2020, filed by her father. She was released to the
custody of the father, from the custody of the petitioner,
on her own request.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, at
that point of time, the detenue had gone with the parents
only because there was a threat that her parents would do
away with the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community and the
respondents 6 and 7 belong to an upper class community. At
an earlier occasion, when the detenue was produced before
the police, she had expressed her willingness to go with
the petitioner.
3. The earlier proceedings were before another Division
Bench in which one of us was a party [KVC(J)]. I specifically
remember the proceedings in W.P.(Crl)No.3185/2020, which
was posted on 22.12.2020. Myself and T.R.Ravi(J) had
talked to the detenue over 'Whatsapp'. She was in the
house of the petitioner when we conversed with her. We
infact insisted that she be kept alone without interference
of anybody from the petitioner's family when she interacts
with us. Police personnel had ensured that we interacted
with the alleged detenue as directed by us and she
specifically told us that she wants to go back to her
parents. There was absolutely no possibility of her having
any contact with the parents, since she was residing at the
petitioner's house at that point of time. We do not find
any cause for issuing notice and the W.P.(Crl) is rejected
in limine.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
uu
12.01.2021 //True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE PHOTO OF THE
PETITIONER AND THE DETENUE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED
11.11.2020 ISSUED FROM SREE NENMINIPURATHU AYYAPANKAVU DEWASOM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF MESSAGES SEND BY THE DETENUE FROM THE MOBILE PHONE OF RESPONDENT NO. 7 TO THE PETITIONER.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!