IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 443 of 2009(S)
1. SIVARAMAN P.P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. SUPT. OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. IBRAHIM, NOORMAJID SHOPPING COMPLEX,
5. RAFEEK,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.T.DINESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) 443 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JANUARY 15, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
This is a writ petition filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to produce the girl before this court. A direction is
further sought to conduct investigation on the basis of the complaint
by the petitioner to conduct investigation.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s
daughter is missing and that she was kidnapped by the 4th respondent
and it is further stated that her whereabouts are known only to the 5th
respondent. A complaint is filed before the police, it is alleged.
4. The alleged detenu had been produced on 7.1.2010 as
ordered and we have passed an interim order on the said day. We
have interacted with the detenu and also the 4th respondent who were
produced by the police. We have taken note of her statement that
she has converted to Islam and that she had married the 4th
respondent. We directed a counter affidavit to be brought on record
by the 4th respondent. A counter affidavit has been brought on record
by the 4th respondent. He has produced Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). Ext.R4
(a) purports to be a true copy of the marriage register extract of
WP(Crl.) 443/09
2
Jamiyyathu Ahllil Qur’an Wal Hadhees Masjid, Salem District. It is
submitted that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the
Shari-Ath on 14.1.2010. The alleged detenu is a major. She is aged
25. In the light of the facts as aforesaid, we find that we need not
allow the petitioner to pursue with the writ petition. Accordingly the
writ petition is dismissed.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-