Priya Vargheese vs The Circle Inspector Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 12219 Ker

Kerala High Court

Priya Vargheese vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 14 May, 2024

Author: T.R.Ravi

Bench: T.R.Ravi

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
                              &
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
  TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 24TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                 WP(CRL.) NO. 476 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
         PRIYA VARGHEESE
         AGED 45 YEARS, D/O PRASANNAN [LATE],
         MANGALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, NARICKAL P.O.,
         KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691322.

         BY ADV PRAKASH MATHEW PANJIKARAN




RESPONDENT(S):
    1     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305.
    2     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305.
    3     GEORGE VARGHEESE
          AGED 54 YEARS, S/O A V GEORGE, PUTHUVELIL HOUSE,
          CHANDRAGIRI ESTATE ROAD, NARICKAL P.O, PUNALUR,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691322.

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
         SHRI.TEKCHAND, SR.G.P.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl.)No.476 of 2024             2



                              JUDGMENT

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of

a writ of habeas corpus directing the production of the petitioner's

minor son Kevin, who is alleged to be in illegal custody of the third

respondent, the father of the boy.

2. On 07.05.2024 this Court had directed the second

respondent to ensure that the third respondent produces the alleged

detenu at 10.15 a.m. on 14.05.2024.

3. Today, the petitioner, the third respondent as well as the

alleged detenu are produced before us. A statement from the Inspector

of Police, Punalur Police Station is also brought to our notice by the

learned Government Pleader.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader for the first and second respondents as

well as the learned counsel for the third respondent. We have also

interacted with the parties including the alleged detenu.

5. After interaction with the detenu, we are convinced that the

child is not in illegal confinement and is residing with his father, the

third respondent, and continuing his studies. In that view of the matter,

we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is only to be

dismissed. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

T. R. RAVI, JUDGE

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE Skk//14.05.2024

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 476/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15-04-2024 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-04-2024