High Court Kerala High Court

G.Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
G.Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 513 of 2009(S)


1. G.KRISHNAN, AGED 55, S/O.GOVINDAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALASSERY.

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY.

4. PRASANTH @ KARUVAN PRASANTH, S/O.BABU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT &
                     M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
            -------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009-S
            -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Basant,J.

The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of a writ

of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter

Ms.Reshma – a minor girl aged below 18 years – she having

been born on 9/4/92. She was allegedly missing from 23/10/09

and the petitioner apprehended that she was being illegally

detained by the 4th respondent – a person in the locality, who,

according to the petitioner, has a questionable past. A crime

was registered by the police. But, according to the petitioner,

the necessary and efficient action was not taken by the police

and it was that which obliged him to come to this Court with

this petition on 3/12/09.

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009 -: 2 :-

2. This petition was admitted on 4/12/09. This matter

came up for hearing on 8/12/09. This judgment must be read in

continuation of our earlier order dated 8/12/09. All the

respondents have been served. The 4th respondent has not

appeared before this Court. It is submitted at the Bar that he is

involved in another crime and he has been arrested and detained

in such crime.

3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner and his

wife are present. He is represented by a counsel. Along with

them, the alleged detenue has also come to Court.

4. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the

Chamber without opportunity for any one to influence or interact

with her. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged

detenue alone initially; but later, in the presence of the

petitioner and his wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader were also present.

5. The alleged detenue is a minor girl who has not attained

the age of majority. She was born on 9/4/92. The learned

Government Pleader submits that after the filing of this case, on

9/12/09 the alleged detenue was traced and was produced

before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Thalassery. The learned Magistrate had entrusted the alleged

detenue – the minor girl, to the custody of the petitioner and

accordingly the minor girl has been with her father from that

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009 -: 3 :-

date.

6. In our interactions with the minor child, she states

unambiguously that she is not under any illegal custody or

detention and that she now wants to return along with her

parents with whom she has come to Court today. She being a

minor and we having satisfied ourselves that she is not under the

illegal custody or detention of any one, we are satisfied that this

writ petition can now be closed and there is no need to issue any

further directions.

7. In the result:

(a) This writ petition is allowed.

(b) The alleged detenue Ms.Reshma, who has come to

Court along with the petitioner and his wife – her parents, is

permitted to leave the Court along with her parents with whom

she has come to Court today.

8. The learned Government Pleader submits that the

needful shall be done in accordance with law by the police in the

crime that is already registered.

Sd/-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

Sd/-


                                        M.C. HARI RANI
                                             (Judge)

Nan/       //true copy//          P.S. to Judge

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009 -: 4 :-




                          R. BASANT &
                     M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.

————————————————-

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009-S

————————————————-
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009

ORDER

Basant,J.

The 4th respondent has been served indirectly by service on

his mother. There is no representation for the 4th respondent.

The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to

3, submits that Crime No.641/09 of the Thalassery Police

Station was registered on 25/10/09 alleging the

disappearance/missing of the minor daughter of the petitioner –

Ms. Reshma by name. The learned Government Pleader submits

that the police are effectively investigating into the crime; but

they have not been able to trace the alleged detenue and the 4th

respondent so far. The learned Government Pleader further

submits that the 4th respondent is required to be arrested as an

accused in Crime No.555/09 of the Thalassery Police Station

registered under Sec.395 IPC. In these circumstances, the

learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3,

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009 -: 5 :-

prays for further time for the Investigating Officer to complete

the investigation and trace the alleged detenue and the 4th

respondent. Every effort is being made and the police do expect

to produce tangible results within a short period of time, submits

the learned Government Pleader.

2. We note that the alleged detenue is a minor girl

allegedly born on 9/4/92. The police must imbibe a sense of

expedition and urgency and must duly take note of the anxiety

and apprehensions of the petitioner. No stone should be left

unturned by the police to trace the alleged detenue

expeditiously. We accept the request of the learned Government

for further time to trace the alleged detenue and the 4th

respondent. But we are satisfied that appropriate directions

must be issued to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

described as the “Superintendent of Police, Thalassery”, is the

Superintendent of Police, Kannur. We deem it necessary to

issue specific directions to the 2nd respondent to personally

supervise and monitor the investigation and ensure that tangible

results are produced by the next date of posting. The 2nd

respondent shall, if necessary, entrust the investigation to more

senior and competent hands of any specialised agency if he feels

the necessity for such entrustment. At any rate, we expect the

2nd respondent – the Superintendent of Police, to ensure that the

alleged detenue is produced before the next date of posting. If

W.P.(Cri) No. 513 of 2009 -: 6 :-

the alleged detenue is traced before the next date of posting, she

shall promptly be produced before the learned Magistrate who

shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders ensuring that the

alleged detenue is available before this Court on the next date of

posting. If she is not traced by the next date of posting, the 2nd

respondent shall file a detailed statement explaining to this

Court the steps taken, the clues collected and the results

achieved.

3. Call on 18/12/2009.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned

Government Pleader for immediate communication to the 2nd

respondent.

R. BASANT
(Judge)

M.C. HARI RANI
(Judge)

Nan/