Praveen vs The District Police Chief
2022 Latest Caselaw 9973 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                   &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                        WP(CRL.) NO. 788 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          PRAVEEN,
          AGED 21 YEARS
          S/O.CLEETUS,
          SLUM COLONY,
          HOUSE NO.77,
          MOOTHAKKARA,
          CUTCHERY P.O,
          KOLLAM-691013


          BY ADVS.PRATHEESH.P
                  ANJANA KANNATH
                  T.S.SREEKUTTY


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA,
          ERNAKULAM - 683 101


    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
          MOOVATTUPUZHA,
          ERNAKULAM - 686673


    3     NAZAR,
          THEKKEKKARA,
          PEZHAKKAPPILLY,
          MULAVOOR,
          ERNAKULAM - 686673
 W.P[Crl.] No.788 of 2022             2



      4        RYHAN T. NAZAR,
               S/O. NAZAR, THEKKEKKARA,
               PEZHAKKAPPILLY,
               MULAVOOR,
               ERNAKULAM - 686673


               R1 & R2 BY SRI. E.C. BINEESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P[Crl.] No.788 of 2022                3




            K. VINOD CHANDRAN & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
         ----------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(Crl.) No.788 of 2022 [S]
         ----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 31th August, 2022

                                 JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner was aggrieved with the illegal

detention of the wife of the petitioner who is said to

have been detained by the third respondent, the father

and the fourth respondent, the brother. We directed a

statement to be recorded from the alleged detenue.

2. The second respondent has recorded a statement

which is produced across the bar by the learned

Government Pleader and he undertakes to file it with a

proper memo. The learned counsel for the petitioner also

has been served with the said statement.

3. In the statement, it is indicated that the

alleged detenue, the daughter of the third respondent got

connected with the petitioner over the telephone. She

also speaks of having eloped with him against the wishes

of her parents. A writ petition was filed before this

Court and she was produced before the Magistrate in whose

jurisdiction the man missing case was registered. She

admits that willingly she left the company of her parents

and went with the petitioner. However, she has a sad

tale to relate after such association with the

petitioner; we term it association since they are not

validly married as yet. It is stated that the petitioner

was a drunkard and was in the habit of physically

assaulting the daughter of the third respondent. She

does not intend to go with the petitioner and she says

that she is staying with her family on her own will, as

per her desire.

4. In the above said circumstances, we see no

reason to issue a writ of habeas corpus.

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

DCS/31/08/2022

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.2022.