High Court Kerala High Court

Mohanan vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 302 of 2010(S)


1. MOHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. PARANKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATHILAKOM

3. KALA AGED 45 YEARS,

4. APARNA AGED 17, D/O. KANNAN, VAZHOOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :11/08/2010

 O R D E R
               R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                       **********************
                  W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010(S)
                       *********************
             Dated this the 11th day of August, 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 adult major son – Jish Mohan, aged above 26 years (date of

birth – 21.11.1983). He is an engineering graduate by

qualification and he runs his own business. He was allegedly

found to be missing from 19.06.2010. The petitioner

apprehended that his son Jish Mohan, the alleged detenu, was

being illegally detained and confined by the 3rd and 4th

respondents. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner’s

brother in law (wife’s brother) and the 4th respondent is the

daughter of the 3rd respondent, aged 17 years. It was the

apprehension of the petitioner that the alleged detenu Jish

Mohan was being lured into a relationship with the 4th

respondent with the active assistance of the 3rd respondent and

with the intention of getting the 4th respondent married to the

alleged detenu he was being illegally confined and detained by

respondent Nos.3 and 4.

W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010 2

2. This petition was filed on 22.07.2010. We were not

satisfied that the matter deserves admission. However, we

directed the learned Government Pleader to take instructions to

enable us to take a decision on the question of admission. On

03.08.2010 after hearing the learned Government Pleader, we

accepted the submission of the learned Government Pleader that

the alleged detenu shall willingly appear before this Court on the

next date of posting. Accordingly the case was posted to this

date.

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

present. He is represented by his counsel. The alleged detenu

Jish Mohan has appeared before Court. He is not represented by

any counsel. We have not admitted the Writ Petition and we had

not ordered notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4. We interacted with the alleged detenu after the lunch

recess alone in the Chamber initially and later in the presence of

his father, the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader were also present. We had

directed the alleged detenue and the petitioner to interact in the

presence of their counsel during the pre lunch session.

W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010 3

5. The alleged detenu Jish Mohan submits that he is

aged above 26 years now, he having been born on 21.11.1983.

He has taken his B.E degree. He was initially employed with an

employer. Later he has left such employer and is running a

business of his own. According to him, he is in love with the 4th

respondent and would like to get married to her. He submits

that it is absolutely incorrect to say that he is under the illegal

detention and confinement of respondent Nos.3 and 4. His

father does not approve of his affair with the 4th respondent and

he is unnecessarily expressing an apprehension that the alleged

detenu is under the illegal confinement and detention of

respondent Nos.3 and 4. He does not reside with respondent

Nos.3 and 4, he submits.

6. We did attempt to bring the parties to a harmonious

settlement. But we note that the petitioner is unable to accept

the relationship between his son, the alleged detenu, and the 4th

respondent. He has got his own reasons for not approving such

relationship. We find ourselves unable to persuade the

petitioner to accept such relationship.

7. Be that as it may, in a petition for issue of a writ of

habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned only with the

W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010 4

question whether the alleged detenu is under any illegal

confinement or detention. The alleged detenu, as stated earlier,

is a young person, aged above 26 years. He is an educated

person, he having taken his B.E degree. He appears to us to be

capable of managing his own affairs. It is not disputed that he is

running a very successful business of his own. We are convinced

that the alleged detenu is not under any illegal detention or

confinement.

8. In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed in limine;

b) The alleged detenu Jish Mohan is informed that he is

at liberty to leave the Court and pursue whatever course he

thinks is good and suitable for him.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/

W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010 5

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

**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010

W.P(Crl.) No.302 of 2010 6

ORDER

BASANT, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not

persuaded to agree on the available materials that there is any

element of illegal detention or confinement. We are hence not

satisfied that notice need be issued to party respondent Nos.3

and 4 now.

2. Notice given. The learned Government Pleader shall

take instructions from respondent Nos.1 and 2 and make

appropriate submissions to help this Court to take a decision on

admission. The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce any

further documents that he wants, to induce a satisfaction in the

Court that the alleged detenu, an adult major son of the

petitioner, aged 27 years, is under detention.

3. Call on 30.07.2010.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/