Kerala High Court
Sabareeswaran.R vs Superintendent Of Police on 5 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
W.P(Crl.) No.854 of 2024 1
2024:KER:67282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO.854 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SABAREESWARAN.R, AGED 23 YEARS, KAMBALATHARA
HOUSE, KANNIMARY CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678534
BY ADVS.
T.K.SANDEEP
SWETHA R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION, MEENAKSHIPURAM,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678533
3 SUPERINTENDENT, MAHILA MANDIRAM, MUTTIKULANGARA,
PUTHUPIRIYARAM, PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678594
BY ADV.SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl.) No.854 of 2024 2
2024:KER:67282
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner has stated in the pleadings that he is a
neighbour of the alleged detenue; and that she has been
detained in a Government Home for Women by the respondents
unfairly.
2. The petitioner, however, admits that the alleged
detenue is a victim in a case registered under the provisions of
the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act [for brevity,
'POCSO Act'], namely Crime No.459 of 2020 of the
Meenakshipuram Police Station; and that it is for her safety and
statutory protection, that she has been housed in the aforesaid
Home.
3. The petitioner nevertheless contends that, since he is
the only person who can take care of the alleged detenue and
since he has no connection with the accused in the afore case,
he is entitled to have her custody, because he intends to marry
her soon.
2024:KER:67282
4. Noticing the rather peculiar circumstances pleaded in
the Writ Petition, we directed the Dy.S.P, Palakkad, to cause an
enquiry against the petitioner, as also his antecedents and
credentials; and the same were made available to us on
23.08.2024, when the alleged detenue was also produced
before us. We interacted with her and she made it unequivocally
clear that she wants to go with the petitioner because, she
expects to have a good life with him as his wife; and she added
that he is, in fact, her distant relative, and not merely a
neighbour.
5. We then spoke to the petitioner on that date, he
affirmed the afore; but since we had a lingering doubt as to
whether he had any connection with the accused in the case
registered under the POCSO Act, we sought for a further report
on that day; and this matter has been thus listed before us
today.
6. The further report as called for above is before us
now, which records that the petitioner has no connection with
2024:KER:67282
the accused in the case, in which the alleged detenue is the
victim. The petitioner was also personally present and he
undertook that he will marry the alleged detenue within a week,
at the "Bhadrakali Amman Temple" at Vannamalai; and that the
same will be registered at the SRO, Chittur. He also informed us
that he has his parents and other relatives at his home; and
assured us that the alleged detenue will be taken full care of, as
his wife.
7. The alleged detenue has been produced before us
today also and we interacted with her again; and her position
was no different and stated that she wanted to go with the
petitioner.
8. We notice from the records that there is no dispute
regarding the age of the alleged detenue, particularly the fact
that she is now a major.
9. The reports furnished before us by the learned
Government Pleader render it without much doubt that the
antecedents and background of the petitioner is without
2024:KER:67282
question; and further, that he does not have any connection
with the accused in the case registered under the POCSO Act.
We are also cognizant that the trial of the said case is going on.
10. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, we
are of the view that the petitioner cannot be constrained to stay
in a Government facility; particularly when she expressed a
desire to go with the petitioner, who is stated to be her distant
relative, as also her neighbour. We are persuaded to this view
because, the young lady does not have any other close relatives
and she says that she is unhappy to be housed in a Government
facility, when she will be in a position to have a much better life
with the petitioner, as his wife, in due course.
11. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Writ
Petition and set the alleged detenue at liberty, with a
consequential direction to respondents 2 & 3 to allow her to go
with the petitioner.
12. We, however, direct the 2nd respondent to verify
whether the afore undertaking of the petitioner is complied with
2024:KER:67282
and that the marriage takes place and is registered. A report on
this regard shall be made available to this Court within two
weeks, which shall be furnished through the learned
Government Pleader and placed before the Registry; in which
event, it will be brought to our notice for appropriate orders at
that time.
This writ petition will thus stand disposed of, except for
the purpose of the report, for which, we list this matter on
26.09.2024.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
sp/05/09/2024
