IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31738 of 2008(C)
1. MUHAMMED T.P
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. EZHOTH VEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
W.P.C.No.31738 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the father of a girl who was allegedly
found to be missing from 04/06/2008. The petitioner filed a
petition before the police and the same was registered as crime
No.186/2008 under the caption “man missing”. Investigation
commenced. In the course of investigation, the missing girl was
traced. She was produced before the learned Magistrate. The
learned Magistrate, when the child was produced on 14/6/2008,
took note of the S.S.L.C book produced by the child which shows
that she was born on 12/5/1990 and hence not a minor on the
date on which the alleged offence was committed. Accordingly
she was permitted to go with the third respondent one
Ramachadran with whom the girl was residing allegedly on her
own free will.
2. The petitioner later came before this court and filed
W.P.(Crl.) 252/08 complaining about the alleged illegal detention
of the petitioner’s daughter by the third respondent. That
petition was disposed of by Ext.P5. The petitioner raised a
contention that as a matter of fact, the child was not born on
W.P.C.No.31738/08 2
12/5/1990 as shown in the school records. But she was actually
born on 28/11/1990 as per the birth register maintained by the
local authority. The Division Bench of this court dismissed the
said writ petition by judgment dated 29/7/2008 as per Ext.P5
order taking the view that it is not necessary in such
proceedings to delve deeper into the question as to which of the
two certificates represent the correct date of birth. Of course, it
was observed that the order of the learned Magistrate dated
14/6/2008 permitting the petitioner’s daughter to go with the
third respondent can be challenged in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner has come before this court.
He contends that the order dated 14/6/2008 is incorrect and
wrong inasmuch as reliance was placed on the incorrect details
available in the S.S.L.C book. Production of the birth register
must have been insisted by the court to ascertain the correct
date of birth, contends the counsel.
4. I am satisfied on the basis of the materials placed
before the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate was
perfectly justified in passing the impugned order dated
14/6/2008. Of course, it is for the petitioner to pursue the
W.P.C.No.31738/08 3
complaint filed by him before the police and request the police to
take further action on the allegation that the offence of
kidnapping has been committed by the third respondent in
allegedly taking away the daughter of the petitioner. The
petitioner can certainly contend before the police that
proceedings are not liable to be dropped and further action must
be taken on the complaint filed by him. The petitioner can
approach the learned Magistrate also seeking further directions
for proper investigation and disposal of crime No.186/2008 of
Chandera police station. The impugned order, which is only an
order relating to interim arrangements for the custody of the
daughter of the petitioner, I am satisfied, is not liable to be
disturbed now as the said order is perfectly justified by the
materials available before the court which passed the order.
5. With the above observations, this petition is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C.No.31738/08 4
W.P.C.No.31738/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007