High Court Kerala High Court

Hamza vs Superintendent Of Police on 14 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Hamza vs Superintendent Of Police on 14 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 477 of 2010(S)


1. HAMZA, S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD - 1.
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI

3. RATHEESH, S/O. MADHAVAN, KARATTIYIL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :14/12/2010

 O R D E R
           R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                      ***********************
                    W.P(Crl) No.477 of 2010
                   *****************************
           Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for

issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce

his minor daughter Rinshana, aged 16 = years (date of birth –

14.05.1994). She is a minor. She was studying for the Plus One

course. The petitioner was employed abroad. From 24.11.2010,

the alleged detenue has been missing. The petitioner

apprehended that his daughter, the alleged detenue Rinshana, is

being illegally detained by the 3rd respondent, a person of the

locality. Complaint was filed before the police. Crime was

registered; but the police did not succeed in tracing the alleged

detenue till 08.12.2010. It is, in these circumstances, that the

petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 08.12.2010.

2. The petition was admitted on 09.12.2010. Notice was

ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.

3. Today when the case came up for hearing, the

petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. His wife,

the mother of the alleged detenue, has also come to Court. The

W.P(Crl) No.477 of 2010 2

3rd respondent has come to Court. He is represented by his

counsel. The alleged detenue has also been brought to Court.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the

alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent had appeared before the

police yesterday, ie. 13.12.2010. As this case stood posted to

this date, the learned Government Pleader had directed the

police to ensure that the alleged detenue is produced before

Court today without insisting on her production before the

learned Magistrate.

5. As the alleged detenue, a minor girl, had appeared

before the police along with the 3rd respondent and the police

have brought her to Court, we wanted the alleged detenue to

remain in the Chamber with no opportunity for the 3rd

respondent to influence her in any way. Her parents, ie. the

petitioner and his wife, her legal guardians, were however

permitted to interact with the alleged detenue during the pre

lunch session.

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

detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents.

Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the 3rd

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

W.P(Crl) No.477 of 2010 3

counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government

Pleader were also present.

7. The alleged detenue states before us categorically

that she wants to leave the Court along with her parents. She is

a minor girl, she having not crossed the age of 17 years. Her

parents are the persons entitled to legal custody of the alleged

detenue. As the alleged detenue also asserts that she wants to

leave with her parents, we are satisfied that her request can be

accepted and the alleged detenue can be permitted to leave the

Court along with her parents, ie. the petitioner and his wife.

8. Crime has already been registered. We find that the

alleged detenue has complaints against the petitioner. We are

satisfied that it is sufficient to direct the police to continue

proper investigation in the crime that has already been

registered. That crime has been registered as Crime 550 of

2010 of Pattambi Police Station. No further or specific

directions appear to be necessary. The learned Government

Pleader submits that the investigation has proceeded and the

alleged detenue has already been examined by a medical officer.

9. We are satisfied that this Writ Petition can now be

allowed and appropriate orders passed.

W.P(Crl) No.477 of 2010 4

10. In the result:

      a)     This Writ Petition is allowed;

      b)     The alleged detenue Rinshana, aged 16 = years (date

of birth – 14.05.1994) is permitted to leave Court along with the

petitioner and his wife, ie. her parents;

c) We record the submission of the learned Government

Pleader that the police shall be continuing with the investigation

and shall take all necessary steps in accordance with law.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

rtr/