Kerala High Court
Jackson Roy vs The District Police Chief on 28 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO. 132 OF 2021
PETITIONER
JACKSON ROY, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. PARTHEEN A., PALLIYEDATH HOUSE, RATTAKOLLI,
KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
WAYANAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-673 701
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KALPETTA POLICE STATION, KALPETTA,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 121
3 RASHEED M.K.
MANGATTU KAVUNGAL HOUSE, ADELAIDE,
KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-673 121
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.
===========================
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
===========================
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayers in the afore captioned Habeas Corpus Writ
proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as
follows:
"
i. Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to
produce the detenue- "Thanha Parvin", aged 19 years, before this
Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri.K.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for official respondents 1 & 2. In the nature of the order
proposed to be passed by us for the disposal of this petition, it is
ordered that notice to contesting respondent No. 3 will stand
dispensed with.
3. The basic factual aspects and some of the subsequent
developments in this case are have been delineated by this Court in
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
the order passed yesterday (27.5.2021) after hearing both sides, and
the same reads as follows:
"The learned Public Prosecutor would submit, on the basis of
instructions of the second respondent SHO, that the competent
police officials concerned have recorded the statement of the alleged
detenue, 'Thanha Parvin', aged 19 years, daughter of R3
(M.K.Rasheed) and she has stated that it is true that she was having
a love affair with the petitioner, aged 33 years, and that she is now
studying for BSc (Medical Laboratory Technology Course) in the
Malabar Medical College Hospital and as she and the petitioner
belongs to different religions and in view of vast age difference
between the two, she has decided that she would consider marriage
with the petitioner only if her parents fully concur with the same
and bless the marital arrangement. Further that since she and the
petitioner belongs to different religions and in view of the age gap
between the two, her parents are not willing to give their consent and
that therefore, she has voluntarily taken a decision not to think in
terms of matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and that she is
not under the illegal detention of anyone, etc.
2. Since the counsel for the petitioner wants some steps to
taken by us of the factual corrections of those submissions, it is
ordered in the interest of justice that the second respondent SHO
will take steps to enable this Court to directly interact with the
alleged detenue through Whats App video phone call tomorrow
(28.5.2021) morning in the chambers at 10.15 A.M. In view of the
nature of this case, we feel it not proper and prudent to interact
directly with the alleged detenue through the video conferencing of
the Court system as it may have privacy issues. Both the counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor should also be
present in the chambers at that time. "
4. Today, the matter has been posted in Chambers and both
Sri.K.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
official respondents 1 & 2 are present. As directed by us, the 2 nd
respondent SHO has made arrangements to enable us to directly
interact with the alleged detenue "Ms.Thanha Parvin, aged 19 years",
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
(daughter of R-3-Sri.M.K.Rasheed) through video phone call or
Whatsapp. The alleged detenue is now in the residence of her parents
and the video phone call interaction has been effected in the presence
of a woman police official in the abovesaid residence of R-3. We
interacted with "Ms.Thanha Parvin", and she has reiterated the same
aspects in the statement she had given to the 2nd respondent SHO
which has been referred to the abovesaid order dated 27.5.2021. She
would say that she is now aged 19 years and is studying for BSc
(Medical Laboratory Technology Course) in the Malabar Medical
College Hospital, and that it is true that there was an affair between
her and the petitioner (Sri.Jackson Roy, aged 33 years), who is a civil
police official. That, in view of the fact that there was vast age
difference between the two and as they belonged to two different
religions, and her stand was that she would consider marriage with the
petitioner only if her parents fully agree with the same etc and that
since the petitioner and the detenue belongs to two different religions
and in view of the age gap between the two, her parents are not willing
to give their consent in arranging the marital relationship, and
therefore, she has taken an independent decision not to continue the
affair with the petitioner and not to think in terms of any marital
relationship with the petitioner, etc and that she is not under the
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
illegal detention of anyone and that she is voluntarily residing with her
parents. Further, without asking any specific queries, she has also
apprised us that she has an apprehension that the petitioner may
cause some problems for her parents, particularly her father-R3.
5. After hearing both sides and after taking into
consideration the stand taken by the alleged detenue with the police
officials concerned as well as the stand taken by her before us in the
personal interaction through video phone call, we are convinced that
the alleged detenue is not under illegal detention of the 3 rd respondent
or anyone else, and that she is voluntarily residing with her parents.
We need not get into any other issues in the matter for the simple
reason that the present case does not disclose a cause of action of
illegal detention, which is one of the primary requisites for the
institution and continuance of a writ proceedings for Habeas Corpus.
Hence the petition fails and the above Writ Petition (Criminal) will
stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
MMG
W.P (Crl.) No. 132 of 2021
ANNEXURE
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 25.4.2021
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED, 25.4.2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED, 29.4.2021
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 29.4.2021
