IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 376 of 2009(S)
1. VISWANATHAN HARIS K.,(31 YEARS),
... Petitioner
2. SARASAN V.P., (60 YEARS),
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. DENNIS JOSEPH, S/O.ANTONY,
5. ANTONY, PALLIPARAMBA HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :23/09/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.)No.376 of 2009
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas
corpus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents
2 and 3 to have the body of the detenue Silja Mol before this
Court and to release her from the illegal custody. The Ist
petitioner is the husband of the alleged detenue and the
second petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue. Their
case is that the alleged detenue is in the custody of
respondents 4 and 5.
2. Today when the matter came up, we heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and
also the alleged detenue.
3. The alleged detenue would tell us that she is
not under illegal detention by respondents 4 and 5. According
to her she is a free agent and that she is staying in Banglore
as a paying guest. In fact, the alleged detenue also says that
WPCR 376/2009 -2-
she is desirous of having the marriage between the Ist
petitioner and herself dissolved. In view of the fact that there
is no illegal detention by respondents 4 and 5 we are inclined
to close the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned
Government Pleader that Crime No.1354/2009 has been
registered in Narakkal police station. In view of the categoric
statement given by the alleged detenue that she is a free
agent and there is no illegal detention by respondents 4 and 5
we think that it is not necessary to proceed further with the
criminal complaint and we order so. Needless to say, it is for
the parties to work out other remedies before appropriate
forum.
The writ petition is dismissed subject to the
aforesaid observations/directions.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS