IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 442 of 2010(S)
1. JAYAKRISHNA.R., AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HARILAL.N.K., LAL BHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. SHALINI SUNIL, W/O.SUNIL,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :16/11/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010-S
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of November, 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
`Anjali Lal’ – a young woman aged above 30 years (date of birth –
25/2/1980). She is a B.Tch. graduate. She was employed
earlier. She is not employed now.
2. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenu –
Anjali Lal, were known to each other. They have decided to get
married. The proposal for marriage does not have the approval
of the relatives of the alleged detenue. The 1st respondent is the
father and the 2nd respondent is the sister of the alleged detenue.
The petitioner alleged that the alleged detenue Anjali Lal is
under the illegal confinement and detention of respondents 1
W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 2 :-
and 2. He hence came to this Court with this petition on
10/11/10.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We
perused the records. We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons
do exist to infer that there is any illegal confinement or
detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner showed us
certain photographs which he said that his client has in his
possession. The petitioner – a person of dignity and self-respect,
did not want to produce the photographs before court. We, in
these circumstances, posted the case on 11/11/10 to this day and
requested the learned Government Pleader to take instructions.
4. Today, when the case is called, the learned Government
Pleader submits that the police is satisfied that the alleged
detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. The
learned Government Pleader submits that the alleged detenue is
willing to appear before this Court to make her
decision/response clear. We accordingly permitted the alleged
detenue to appear before us in the Chamber at 1.45 p.m.
5. After the lunch recess at 1.45 p.m. we interacted with
the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her
in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent – sister of the alleged detenue
W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 3 :-
herself a lawyer as also the learned learned Government Pleader
were present.
6. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that
she is not under any illegal detention or confinement.
According to her, she wants to return along with respondents 1
and 2 and does not want to go with the petitioner. The
petitioner wanted an opportunity to interact with the alleged
detenue in private. But the alleged detenue stated categorically
that she does not want to have any such interaction. The
alleged detenue stated categorically that she wants to have
nothing to do with the petitioner and wants to return along with
respondents 1 and 2. Her marriage is already fixed, she
submitted.
7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are
primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged
detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. From
our interaction with the alleged detenue, we are satisfied that
she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We are
satisfied that no further directions are necessary.
8. The petitioner and the counsel fairly accepted that some
photographs which are available with the petitioner can be
returned to the alleged detenue. The same have been returned.
W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 4 :-
9. In the result:
(a) This writ petition is dismissed.
(b) The alleged detenue Anjali Lal is permitted to leave this
Court along with the 2nd respondent as desired by her.
10. Both sides agree that they shall not indulge in any
vindictive or vexatious action against each other. The learned
Government Pleader submits that if either has such a genuine
complaint, such party can complain to respondents 3 and 4 who
shall take necessary and prompt action in that regard.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge