Kerala High Court
Susheela vs State Police Chief on 6 October, 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.
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO. 228 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SUSHEELA
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN, EDAVANA PUTHANVEEDU, MAMMIYOOR,
GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 101.
BY ADVS.
R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
NEERAJ NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 010.
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
PIN-688 012.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NOORANAD POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM-PATHANAPURAM ROAD,
MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 504.
4 RAGHUNATHA PILLAI
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, ULAVUKKAD, NOORANAD,
MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 504.
BY ADVS.
WP(Crl.) No.228 /2021 2
OTHER PRESENT:
FOR R1 TO R3 BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SENIOR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.228 /2021 3
JUDGMENT
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner
praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
directing respondents 1 to 3 to produce
Ms.Thankamma, who is the mother of the petitioner
as well as the 4th respondent and to set her at
liberty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the
alleged detenue who is aged 84 years, is illegally
detained by the 4th respondent and she is not being
allowed to move freely according to her own will.
She is also denied the basic amenities such as food
and medicine. According to her,the 4th respondent is
not permitting the petitioner to see the mother as
well.
3. When this writ petition came up for
admission on 28.09.2021, we passed an order
directing the 3rd respondent to get a statement of
the alleged detenue through a woman police officer
without the presence of any family members of the
alleged detenue. In compliance of the said
direction, the 3rd respondent submitted a report
along with a statement of the alleged detenue. The
contents of the said statement would indicate that,
the alleged detenue is under the care and
protection of the 4th respondent. She denied the
averment that she is under any illegal detention.
She asserts that on account of her ailments owing
to her old age, she is not in a position to walk on
her own and she is not even in a position to go to
toilet without the help of any other person. She
has stated that, she is being looked after properly
by the 4th respondent as well as his wife.
4. The contents of the said document do not
indicate any illegal detention of the alleged
detenue, as alleged in the writ petition.
Apparently, there is difference of opinion between
the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The powers of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is confined to ensure personal liberty of the
citizen and the same cannot be invoked to resolve
individual disputes. In this case, we are convinced
that the allegation raised by the petitioner is not
sustainable as the alleged detenue is not under any
illegal detention.
5. In such circumstances, we do not find any
ground to entertain this Writ Petition and
accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 228/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.9.2021
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-
P.S. TO JUDGE
