Sadarudheen vs Director General Of Police (Law & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 817 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                          &

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

          MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943

                             WP(CRL.) NO. 13 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

               SADARUDHEEN,
               AGED 27 YEARS,
               S/O. BADARUDHEEN,
               MANIKKATHARAYIL HOUSE,
               ATHIKATTUKKULANGARA P.O,
               PALAMEL, NOORANAD,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

               BY ADVS.
               C.B.SREEKUMAR
               SAGITH KUMAR V.

RESPONDENTS:

     1         DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER),
               POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 010

     2         CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
               KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031

     3         STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               PALLURUTHI POLICE STATION, PIN - 682 006

     4         MR. MANUEL K.J,
               KADAVIPARAMBIL, JANATHA ROAD,
               KUMBALANGY (SOUTH)
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 007

     5         SMT. STEPHY SARA K.M.,
               KADAVIPARAMBIL, JANATHA ROAD,
               KUMBALANGY (SOUTH)
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 007

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
               DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl) No.13 of 2022

                                    2


         K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
                 ---------------------------------------
                    W.P(Crl.)No. 13 of 2022
                 ---------------------------------------
            Dated this the 17th day of January, 2022


                            JUDGMENT

Jayachandran, J.

The petitioner, who claims to have married

the 5th respondent seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas

Corpus, directing her production before this Court,

on the premise that the 5th respondent is in the

illegal custody of her father/4th respondent. It is

the specific case of the petitioner that he married

the 5th respondent as per the Special Marriage Act on

13.10.2021 and were living as husband and wife.

While so, the 5th respondent was informed that her

grandmother is sick and that she wanted to meet the

5th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner and the

5th respondent went to the parental house of the

latter on 15.12.2021. The petitioner, who could not

dispense his presence at his shop, came back. But

the 5th respondent resided in her parental house. W.P.(Crl) No.13 of 2022

Contrary to the promise made, the 5th respondent did

not return even after Christmas. On enquiry, the

petitioner came to know that the 5th respondent has

been illegally detained by her father/4th respondent

against her consent. On such premise, the

petitioner seeks the relief referred above.

2. As per order dated 06.01.2022, a Division

Bench of this Court directed the 3rd respondent,

Station House Officer to obtain a statement of the

alleged detenue by a woman Police Officer, without

the presence of the 4th respondent or his family

members. The said statement is made available

before us today, wherein the alleged detenue/5th

respondent would state that the petitioner

threatened her that he would commit suicide, unless

the 5th respondent accompany him and in the spell of

such threat, she was taken to the house of the

petitioner on 04.09.2021, at Nooranad. Although,

the 5th respondent's parents came there to take her

back, she was forcibly dragged to the room and

locked by the petitioner. Thereafter, the 5th W.P.(Crl) No.13 of 2022

respondent was threatened to express her consent for

marrying the petitioner. In the religious records,

the 5th respondent's name is entered as 'Sara Beevi'.

The 5th respondent would state that she was living in

the petitioner's house as if she was in house

arrest. The marriage under the Special Marriage Act

was also conducted under threat and duress. The 5 th

respondent was interdicted from communicating with

anybody.

3. In short, the 5th respondent would indicate

that she has no interest, whatsoever, to go along

with the petitioner and that she got herself rescued

from the petitioner's house, out of her own desire,

being fed up with mental harassment and the attempt

to convert her to Islam. The statement made by the

alleged detenue would also indicate that her

certificates are in the hands of the petitioner.

4. In the factual premise above referred, the

allegations in the writ petition are found to be

untrue. There is no illegal detention, whatsoever,

of the 5th respondent in the hands of her father/4th W.P.(Crl) No.13 of 2022

respondent. Her statement would indicate otherwise.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is

closed as meritless.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

NR/17/01/2022 W.P.(Crl) No.13 of 2022

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 13-10-2021

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02-01-2022