IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2916 of 2005()
1. RENJITH, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAPILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 2916 of 2005
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.66
of 2005 of Kunnicodu Police Station for the offence
punishable under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code,
approached this Court by filing the above Crl.M.C. to
quash Annexure-I final report and to quash further
proceedings thereon. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he forcibly took away C.W.1’s minor
daughter by name Sherin Sabu on 21.3.2005 from the
school where Sherin Sabu was studying in 12th standard.
According to the petitioner, he has not committed any
offence alleged against the petitioner and all allegations
are baseless. It is the specific case of the petitioner that
CW-1’s daughter who is the additional fourth respondent
in this Crl.M.C. joined up with the company of the
petitioner and it is the fourth respondent who volunteered
to join up with the petitioner. W.P(Crl) No.94 of 2005 was
filed before this Court for the issuance of a writ of habeas
WP(C) NO.
:-2-:
corpus in the above writ petition. The additional fourth
respondent was taken into custody and produced before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Dharmapuri
and subsequently produced before this Court on
29.4.2005. According to the petitioner, in her
statement recorded before the Magistrate Court,
Dharmapuri, the fourth respondent has stated that she
went along with the petitioner according to her own will
and wish and there was no compulsion or threat from
the side of the petitioner. The said statement is the part
of the proceedings of this Court in W.P(Crl) No.94 of
2005. Besides that, the additional fourth respondent
has also made a statement before this Court in the above
habeas corpus proceedings that she was well prepared
to go along with the petitioner therein- the additional
third respondent who is the mother of the fourth
respondent herein. According to the petitioner, since
the additional fourth respondent took adamant stand
that she would go along with the petitioner, this Court,
put her in ‘YMCA’ Hostel at Ernakulam and directed the
WP(C) NO.
:-3-:
accused to pay the initial expense. It is the further case
of the petitioner that the additional fourth respondent
became major on 2.9.2005 and this Court allowed the
petitioner and his parents to take the girl and thereafter,
the fourth respondent was residing along with the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, the marriage has
taken place on 6.10.2005.
2. In the mean while, the investigation was
conducted by the second respondent and a final report
was filed before the court below which was taken in file
as C.P.No.723 of 2005. It is at this stage, the petitioner
approached this Court for quashing the proceedings.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor. Last
time when the matter was taken up for consideration,
counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that
the petitioner is harassing the fourth respondent
demanding money as dowry. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that such allegations are baseless and
the fourth respondent is residing along with the
WP(C) NO.
:-4-:
petitioner and in their wedlock, they have got a female
child born and they are living happily and without any
problem. Since the allegation is raised from the side of
the additional third respondent, this Court directed
both the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 to be
present in this Court today and accordingly, both the
petitioner and the additional fourth respondent are
present and on interaction with the additional fourth
respondent, she submits that she is now living a smooth
family life and she is happy with the present situation
and there was no harassment or demand from the part
of the petitioner and she further submits that she does
not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner.
Though a direction was given to the additional third
respondent to appear before this Court, she is not
present today, but it is submitted by her counsel that she
is on the way and she will reach in the court within a
short time. The additional fourth respondent was
questionned on the spot in the presence of counsel
appearing for the third respondent. She denied all the
WP(C) NO.
:-5-:
allegations now raised on behalf of the additional third
respondent.
4. The case of the de facto complainant is that
the petitioner had committed the offence punishable
under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code by forcibly
taking the additional fourth respondent from the school
where she was studying. But the subsequent
proceedings would show that the additional fourth
respondent had eloped with the petitioner according to
her own will
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge
MBS/
WP(C) NO.
:-6-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200
——————————————–
J U D G M E N T
WP(C) NO.
:-7-:
DATED: -2-2008