Kerala High Court
Kannan vs The Director General Of Police on 30 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
W.P(Crl.) No.995 of 2024 1
2024:KER:72524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
W.P(CRL) NO.995 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KANNAN, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.PERIYA KARUPPAN, THEVARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PANDATHICHEERA, TRIPUNITHURA, EROOR, KOCHI,
PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
P.V.ANILKUMAR
D.SARITHA
KEERTHI PRIYA A.
JOHN MANJOORAN
MANU MURALI T.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 682031
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
W.P(Crl.) No.995 of 2024 2
2024:KER:72524
3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGADU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682306
4 AMAL JOSEPH
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, MERATHIL HOUSE, GANDHI ROAD, MARAKKAN
VEEDU, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682506
5 MINI, W/O.JOSEPH, MERATHIL HOUSE,
MARAKKAN VEEDU, GANDHI ROAD, KUMBALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682506
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.SHAMEER-GP,
K.G.RAJEEV
K.R.JITHIN(K/390/2016)
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR(K/652/2008)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl.) No.995 of 2024 3
2024:KER:72524
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner alleges that his daughter Smt.Remya -
who is 19 years of age, has been abducted and is detained in
illegal custody by respondents 4 & 5. He thus seeks a direction
to the respondents 1 to 3 to have her produced before this Court
and to set her at liberty.
2. Hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as
afore on 10.09.2024, we sought instructions to be obtained by
the learned Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Shameer, from the
official authorities; while we issued notice to respondents 4 & 5
by Speed Post.
3. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26.09.2024,
when, very intriguingly, the learned Government Pleader made
available a report of the Police across the Bar, which contained
rather startling statements that, neither the alleged detenue nor
respondents 4 & 5 have been traced and that the latter are not
available in their residence.
4. We, thereupon, allowed the petitioner to take out
2024:KER:72524
notice to respondents 4 & 5 by Special Messenger; and it is thus,
that this matter has been listed today. Interestingly, the alleged
detenue - Smt.Remya, has been produced before us by
respondents 4 & 5.
5. We interacted with Smt.Remya, who informed us
that, though she is married to another person, she is unhappy in
such matrimonial union; and that she, therefore, left her
matrimonial home to leave for Bangalore, where she is presently
staying in a 'Paying Guest' accommodation. She made it
unequivocally clear to us that she is not under detention and
that she intends to go back to Bangalore and continue her life
there, independently.
6. We, thereupon, talked to the petitioner and his wife -
who were also personally present before us - who came across
to us as very simple people, eking out livelihood; and they
asserted that the version given by the alleged detenue is not
correct and that she was married to her husband by them, after
garnering resources through loans and others. They prayed that
Smt.Remya be allowed to return with them.
2024:KER:72524
7. Respondents 4 & 5, on the other hand, informed us
that Smt.Remya is only a friend of the first among them, namely
the 4th respondent, and that they are involved only because she
asked him for help, to get away from her unhappy matrimonial
life. In fact, the 4th respondent - Sri.Amal conceded that he had
an earlier relationship with the alleged detenue, but that it is no
longer continued, after her marriage.
8. Pertinently, the 5th respondent and her husband, who
were also present, appeared to be completely unaware of the
real situation, though, they admitted, to a question from this
Court, that they went to Bangalore yesterday to pick up the
alleged detenue - Smt.Remya, to produce her before us today.
In fact, this is confirmed by Smt.Remya also, who, however,
added that she intends to return to Bangalore alone. But,
respondents 4 & 5 specifically offered before us that they will
accompany her to Bangalore and that she will be taken to her
accommodation at Bangalore.
9. Therefore, as matters now stand, the alleged detenue
does not appear to be under detention, though her relationship
2024:KER:72524
with the 4 respondent is unclear. However, since respondents 4
th
& 5 now offer to accompany her to Bangalore to her residence
there, we see no reason to keep this Writ Petition pending any
further.
In the afore circumstances, recording the above
submissions of all the sides, we close this Writ Petition without
any further orders.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
sp/30/09/2024
2024:KER:72524
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 995/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE DATED 12/8/2024, ISSUED BY
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THIRUPPUVANAM.
Exhibit - P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPHS OF
PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER.
Exhibit - P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED
30/8/2024, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
