Kerala High Court
Radhakrishna Pillai V vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO.29 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI V., AGED 48 YEARS,
SON OF THE LATE KUTTAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL THEKKETHIL,
PANDANAD WEST P.O. CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 506.
2 PRASANNAKUMARI V.P., AGED 46 YEARS,
WIFE OF RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL THEKKETHIL,
PANDANAD WEST P.O. CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 506.
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN
SMT.V.DEEPA
SMT.ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD,
CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA 688 012.
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 122.
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 2 -
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR, MUNICIPALITY ROAD,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121.
5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION,
MUNICIPALITY ROAD, CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 121.
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.
7 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.
8 VISHNU UNNI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
9 MANNIAMMA, WIFE OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
10 ARAMUGHAM, SON OF SANTHANAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
11 VAISHAK PILLAI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
12 VISHAK PILLAI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
13 AMRITHA, WIFE OF VISHAK PILLAI,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
14 SURESH KUMAR G, SON OF GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT THULASI BHAVANAM, WARD XII,
MOOCHIKADAVU MURI,
AGALI VILLAGE, SHOLAYUR,
PALAKKAD 678 581.
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 3 -
15 ABDUL GHAYU,
GRADE SUB INSPECTOR,
SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD 678 581.
R9 & R11 BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.STEPHY K. REGI
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 TO R7 & R15 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.K.B.RAMANAND.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 4 -
K. Vinod Chandran & Ziyad Rahman, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P(Crl.)No.29 of 2021-S
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2021
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioners were concerned with the fact that
their daughter was missing. When the writ petition was
filed, she had just attained majority; but it was alleged
that even before attaining majority the minor child was
taken away by the 8th respondent, whose parents and
relatives are the respondents 9 to 14. The police were not
able to trace out the girl and a Special Investigation Team
was constituted under the supervision of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Chengannur. Enquiries were made
and we had made repeated orders in the above writ petition.
2. On 21.06.2021 when the matter was posted, it
was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the
girl child was traced out and produced before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur. We directed the
Magistrate, through the Registrar (District Judiciary), to
forward a copy of the statement recorded. The statement
recorded is produced along with the report of the Registrar
(District Judiciary), which is marked as Court Exhibit C1.
We make it clear that the statement was called for only for
our perusal and it should not be disclosed to anybody else.
It is directed that no certified copy shall be issued of
the report or the statement to the parties in the writ
petition or third parties.
3. On our direction, the subject was produced
before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram
since it was submitted that she is now residing at
Thiruvananthapuram. We directed the Principal District
Judge to interact with the subject and also provide Video
Conferencing facility for her to interact with us. We
further directed the parents of the subject to be present
before that Principal District Court if they are desirous
of interacting with their daughter.
4. Today, our directions in the order dated
21.06.2021 has been complied with. We interacted with the
subject, who appeared before the Principal District Judge
along with a Social Activist, who is also a Media
personnel. We interacted with the subject, her parents and
also the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The
subject specifically told us that she is not in illegal
custody of anyone and that she has married the 8 th
respondent. The 8th respondent is as of now absconding,
since he is charged for an offence of having taken a minor
girl child from the custody of her parents. We interacted
with the parents, who only prayed that they may be allowed
to have constant contact with their daughter. They realize
the futility in asking for the custody of the child, since
now she has turned major.
5. The Principal District Judge also informs us
that he interacted with the subject personally and she is
definite in her desire to continue as of now with the
person accompanying her, one Sheeba S.M., aged 34 years,
W/o.Saran, House No.81-A, Kesari Lane, Poojappura, awaiting
the return of her husband/8th respondent. She promises that
she would have contact with her parents and her parents
agreed to purchase a Mobile Phone for her so as to keep in
constant touch.
6. After hearing was concluded, the Principal
District Judge also forwarded a report, which is marked as
Court Exhibit C2. We make it clear that certified copy of
this document also shall not be issued to the parties in
the writ petition or third parties.
7. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that no
writ of habeas corpus be issued since the missing girl has
been produced before us through Video Conferencing in the
presence of the Principal District Judge. She was also
produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Chengannur, who recorded her statement. Before the
Magistrate and to the Principal District Judge as also to
us she unequivocally expressed her desire to continue with
the 8th respondent, on whose instructions she is residing
along with the Social Activist. The subject, the alleged
detenue, also has turned 18 years of age. We make it clear
that we have not made any observation about the criminal
law set in motion against the 8th respondent and this order
or the observations in it, do not at all regulate the
criminal proceedings. We, hence, close the above writ
petition reiterating that no copies of the Court Exhibits
marked as C-1 and C-2 shall be issued to any of the parties
or third parties.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
Vku/-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.)NO.29/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE FIR NO.1731 OF
2020 LODGED WITH 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE
DETENUE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS
AND DEATHS MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY.
COURT EXHIBITS:-
COURT EXHIBIT C1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM
RECORDED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR DATED 04/06/2021
WITH REPORT OF REGISTRAR (DISTRICT
JUDICIARY).
COURT EXHIBIT C2 REPORT SUBMITTED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24/06/2021.
