{"id":199391,"date":"2009-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-08-30T13:59:35","modified_gmt":"2014-08-30T08:29:35","slug":"mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 27006 of 2004(M)\n\n\n1. MRS.GEETHA GLADSTON,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER,\n\n3. R.K.VERMA,\n\n4. LONGTON JOSEPH,\n\n5. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n6. UNION OF INDIA,\n\n7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :04\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              A.K. BASHEER & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n                   ---------------------------------------------\n                     W.P.(C) No.27006 OF 2004,\n                    CRL.M.C.NO.1518 OF 2005&\n                    W.P.(CRL.)NO.122 OF 2009\n                    -------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009\n\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Basheer, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     These three       cases        are being           disposed of by     this<\/p>\n
common judgment since the petitioner is common, and issues<\/p>\n
involved in them are closely interrelated.<\/p>\n
     2. Petitioner is the wife of Dr. David Enos Gladston. They got<\/p>\n
married in the year 1982.         They have a daughter named Gypsy<\/p>\n
Gladston, who is aged about 24 years.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27006\/2004<\/p>\n
is that her husband had been missing                     from his residence at<\/p>\n
Chavara in Alappuzha District             since December, 2000 and his<\/p>\n
whereabouts were not known. Petitioner, therefore, prayed for<\/p>\n
issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation to take over the investigation into the disappearance<\/p>\n
of her husband    and file a report before the competent court<\/p>\n
expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                               :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. The above writ petition was filed in September, 2004.<\/p>\n
But admittedly, in 2001 Chavara police had       registered Crime<\/p>\n
No.506\/2001 and conducted investigation on the basis of the<\/p>\n
complaint filed by the petitioner. The police, after investigation,<\/p>\n
found that petitioner’s husband who had been serving in the Health<\/p>\n
Service had joined a hospital in Libya as a Surgeon, after obtaining<\/p>\n
leave without allowance from the Government. She had also filed<\/p>\n
an original petition before this court (O.P.No.35742\/2001) praying<\/p>\n
for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. But during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the original petition she came to know that her husband was in<\/p>\n
Libya. It appears that the original petition was disposed of with<\/p>\n
liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter appropriately. It is<\/p>\n
also on record that she had filed yet another writ petition as<\/p>\n
O.P.No.3249\/2002 impugning the refer report filed by the<\/p>\n
Chavara police in the “man missing” crime, (crime No.506\/2001)<\/p>\n
referred to above. This Court had directed the Director General<\/p>\n
of Police to consider the representation submitted by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in this regard and take an appropriate decision.     The<\/p>\n
Director General, after     considering the representation, had<\/p>\n
found that the investigation conducted by the police was proper<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                               :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nand no further investigation was called for.<\/p>\n
     5. Petitioner had thereafter filed Crl.M.C.No.4532\/2003<\/p>\n
before this Court praying for issue of a direction to the police<\/p>\n
to conduct further investigation in the “man missing” crime. The<\/p>\n
said petition was also dismissed by this Court by order dated<\/p>\n
November 12, 2003 as could be seen from Ext.P11.<\/p>\n
     6.  Petitioner has   filed  this  writ petition in the above<\/p>\n
backdrop praying for a further investigation by the C.B.I in the<\/p>\n
“man missing” crime alleging that Exts.P16 to P18 allegedly<\/p>\n
received by her from the Embassy of India in Libya would<\/p>\n
indicate that her husband had never been to Libya as alleged by<\/p>\n
the Embassy Officials and that Ext.P12 “Life Certificate” issued<\/p>\n
by the   Attache (Consular) Embassy of India in Libya could not<\/p>\n
therefore be relied on.\n<\/p>\n
     7. In the counter affidavit filed by the       then Director<\/p>\n
General of Police, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner<\/p>\n
had not been “missing” since December, 2000 as alleged.         In<\/p>\n
fact, he had been living in Libya    as confirmed by the Indian<\/p>\n
Embassy in that country. It is further stated by the Director<\/p>\n
General that the petitioner had been misleading the court and in<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthat process, she had produced Exts.P16 to P18 documents which<\/p>\n
were apparently forged and     fabricated  by  her.   The forgery<\/p>\n
committed by the petitioner was more or less confirmed by the<\/p>\n
Attache (Consular) in the Embassy of India in Libya and also by<\/p>\n
the Secretary to Government, Non-Resident Keralites’      Affairs<\/p>\n
Department (NORKA) under the Government of Kerala. In Ext.R1<\/p>\n
(d) communication     dated October 21, 2004,    the Secretary to<\/p>\n
Chief   Minister, Government of    Kerala  had    addressed   the<\/p>\n
Director General of Police, Trivandrum informing him that the<\/p>\n
Chief   Minister  had   directed  to take prompt action on   the<\/p>\n
complaint received from the NORKA Department about the<\/p>\n
alleged forgery committed by the petitioner. The letter further<\/p>\n
informed    the Director General   that  the office of the Chief<\/p>\n
Minister had requested the NORKA Department to provide all<\/p>\n
details available with them to the police for further necessary<\/p>\n
action.   Pursuant to the above, Contonment Police Station,<\/p>\n
Trivandrum had registered Crime No.85\/CB\/10\/05 under Section<\/p>\n
468 IPC against the petitioner on March 16, 2005. The Director<\/p>\n
General stated    that the investigation in   the   case was in<\/p>\n
progress. We will refer to the other contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                                :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nDirector General in his counter affidavit, a little later.<\/p>\n
      8. It is evident from the averments in the writ petition that<\/p>\n
the marital relationship between the petitioner and her husband<\/p>\n
had not been smooth or cordial at all for the last several years.<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s husband had been working in         the   Health Service<\/p>\n
under the Government of Kerala.     But, petitioner alleged that her<\/p>\n
husband abstained from duty during September 2000. Initially<\/p>\n
petitioner    was not aware of his absence from duty,      since she<\/p>\n
had been receiving money orders every month from her husband<\/p>\n
towards maintenance as ordered by the court. But, according to<\/p>\n
her, when she came         to know that her husband had not been<\/p>\n
attending to his official duty, she had filed the original petition<\/p>\n
(O.P.No.35742\/2001) for issue     of a writ of habeas corpus. But,<\/p>\n
during the pendency of that original petition, she came to know<\/p>\n
that her husband had got an appointment in Libya as General<\/p>\n
Surgeon in Al-Siraaj International Hospital. He had gone to<\/p>\n
Libya after obtaining leave without allowance for five years from<\/p>\n
the Government.       Exts.P5 and P6 are respectively the order of<\/p>\n
appointment of her husband in the hospital in Libya and          the<\/p>\n
application for leave without allowance submitted by him before<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                               :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe Government.         Ext.P7 is   stated   to be    the copy of<\/p>\n
communication      dated   December 15, 2003     received by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner from the Government informing her that her husband<\/p>\n
had taken up an assignment in a hospital in Libya (as informed<\/p>\n
by him through the first Secretary of the Indian Embassy).<\/p>\n
      9. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was aware where<\/p>\n
her husband was.      But, curiously, petitioner had preferred this<\/p>\n
writ petition in September 2004 alleging that her husband had<\/p>\n
been missing       and his whereabouts      were not known. She<\/p>\n
further alleged that she had received Ext.P16 communication<\/p>\n
from the Attachi (Consular), Embassy of India, Libya informing<\/p>\n
that her husband had never been called for an interview from<\/p>\n
the Secretary nor had he been appointed in the hospital. It was<\/p>\n
further stated in Ext.P16 communication that a person in the<\/p>\n
name of Dr. David Gladston Enos had not even arrived in Libya.<\/p>\n
Ext.P17 is yet another     communication allegedly issued by the<\/p>\n
Attache (Consular), Embassy of      India in Libya informing   the<\/p>\n
petitioner that no communication had been received        from the<\/p>\n
Indian Embassy about the whereabouts of her husband in Libya.<\/p>\n
It was relying on these three documents the petitioner alleged<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                                :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthat the   whereabouts     of her husband were not known        and<\/p>\n
therefore,   the C.B.I had    to be directed   to  conduct  further<\/p>\n
investigation. She asserted that Exts.P16 to P18 would show<\/p>\n
that her husband was not in Libya.\n<\/p>\n
      10. As mentioned earlier, it is admitted by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
the writ petition itself that she had received a communication<\/p>\n
from the Government of Kerala (Ext.P7) on December 15, 2003<\/p>\n
informing her that her husband had      gone to Libya    and taken<\/p>\n
up an assignment there. She had also stated that she came to<\/p>\n
know from the Government          that her husband had availed of<\/p>\n
leave without allowance for five years to take up the above<\/p>\n
assignment in Libya.        She had produced Ext.P5 order of<\/p>\n
appointment issued by the Hospital in Libya to her husband. Ext.P6<\/p>\n
is the copy of the leave application submitted by her husband before<\/p>\n
the Government of Kerala.       It may also be noticed that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had produced Ext.P12 life certificate issued by the<\/p>\n
Embassy of India in Libya certifying that petitioner’s husband had<\/p>\n
appeared before R.K. Verma, Attache (Consular), Embassy of India<\/p>\n
in Libya.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     11. In spite of all these documents produced by her along<\/p>\n
with the writ petition she alleged, relying entirely on Exts.P16 to<\/p>\n
P18 that her husband’s whereabouts were not known.<\/p>\n
     12. The Director General of Police, in his counter affidavit,<\/p>\n
asserted that Exts.P16 to P18 documents were forged.            This<\/p>\n
assertion was made after getting clarification and authentic<\/p>\n
information from the Embassy of India, NORKA etc.<\/p>\n
     13. It may also be noticed that in the year 2001, petitioner<\/p>\n
had filed   a complaint before Chavara police alleging that her<\/p>\n
husband had been missing since December, 2000. The police had<\/p>\n
registered Crime No.56\/2001 and conducted investigation. The<\/p>\n
case was closed since it was revealed from the investigation<\/p>\n
that there was no substance in the allegation made by the petitioner<\/p>\n
and her husband had gone to Libya after obtaining leave without<\/p>\n
allowance from the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Petitioner nevertheless filed a writ petition before this<\/p>\n
Court seeking further investigation. On a direction issued by this<\/p>\n
Court, the Director General of Police had addressed the grievance<\/p>\n
of  the petitioner in this  regard, and     informed her that    the<\/p>\n
investigation conducted by the police in Crime No.506\/2001 was<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                               :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nproper and sufficient.\n<\/p>\n
      15. Dissatisfied with the above stand taken by the police,<\/p>\n
petitioner had    filed Crl.M.C.No.4532\/2003    before  this Court<\/p>\n
seeking for a further investigation     of the case.   The above<\/p>\n
petition was dismissed by this Court as could be seen from<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 order.    This Court noticed that  the investigation in the<\/p>\n
case had revealed that petitioner’s husband had gone to Libya<\/p>\n
after availing leave from the Government of Kerala.<\/p>\n
      16. We have referred to the above aspects in detail only<\/p>\n
to show that petitioner was all along aware of the fact        that<\/p>\n
her husband had gone to Libya         to take up an assignment in<\/p>\n
that country and that too, after obtaining leave without allowance<\/p>\n
from the Government of Kerala, his employer. The police prima<\/p>\n
facie  found that Exts.P16 to P18 documents produced by the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  not only before    them but before   this Court were<\/p>\n
forged and fabricated. Crime No.85\/CB\/10\/05 registered by the<\/p>\n
Cantonment Police, Trivandrum, in this connection on the basis<\/p>\n
of  the letter   received   from   the  Secretary, NORKA is now<\/p>\n
pending investigation.\n<\/p>\n
      17. When this writ petition had come up before one of us<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n(Basheer, J.) on August 8, 2005, respondent No.1 was directed to<\/p>\n
produce the original documents referred to by him            in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit, before this Court in a sealed cover. The above<\/p>\n
direction was complied with and the documents             are now<\/p>\n
available in a sealed cover. These documents are the subject<\/p>\n
matter of investigation in the crime referred to above, registered<\/p>\n
by the Cantonment police against the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      18. In the statement filed by the Director General of Police<\/p>\n
along with the sealed cover, it is reiterated that petitioner’s<\/p>\n
husband holding Indian Passport No.B 0638170 had been living<\/p>\n
in Libya at the relevant point of time. But, according to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, Exts.P16 to P18    would show    that not only Ext.P12<\/p>\n
Life Certificate, but also the contents of the communications<\/p>\n
issued by the Indian Embassy were not correct or reliable. She<\/p>\n
further alleged that Exts.P16 to P18 would further indicate that<\/p>\n
her husband had never been to Libya.\n<\/p>\n
      19. The fate of the present writ petition will, therefore,<\/p>\n
depend     entirely on  these   three   communications    allegedly<\/p>\n
received by the petitioner from the Indian Embassy in Libya.<\/p>\n
However,     as has been noticed already,     the communications<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nreceived by the     Director General of Police    from the Indian<\/p>\n
Embassy and NORKA did reveal that the              genuineness of<\/p>\n
Exts.P16   to P18 is suspect. A bare perusal of these documents<\/p>\n
with naked eye will show that there is considerable force in the<\/p>\n
stand taken by the police.      However, we do not propose to<\/p>\n
make any further comment on this aspect since the case is<\/p>\n
stated to be under investigation by the police.<\/p>\n
     20. In this context, it may also be noticed that the<\/p>\n
Criminal Miscellaneous Case      filed by the petitioner (Ext.P11)<\/p>\n
was dismissed by this Court in November 2003 by which          the<\/p>\n
prayer for further investigation in the crime was turned down<\/p>\n
by this Court.  The above petition was dismissed by this Court on<\/p>\n
November 12, 2003. Exts.P16 and P18 are dated December 13,<\/p>\n
2003 whereas Ext.P17 is dated June 14, 2004.          The order in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C was    never challenged by the petitioner before       the<\/p>\n
superior forum.     But, the present writ petition was filed<\/p>\n
seeking a further investigation by the C.B.I     relying on these<\/p>\n
three documents viz., Exts.P16 to P18.\n<\/p>\n
     21. Having considered all the materials available on record<\/p>\n
and having perused     the  original   records produced by     the<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                             :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nDirector General of Police in a sealed cover, we are satisfied<\/p>\n
that petitioner has abused the process of this Court. She has to<\/p>\n
necessarily face the consequences.     The writ petition is liable to<\/p>\n
be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
     22. Interestingly,  when    this writ petition came up      for<\/p>\n
consideration   in  July  2005, petitioner  filed   an   additional<\/p>\n
affidavit dated July 10, 2005 stating that she did not intend to<\/p>\n
pursue the matter any further since her husband had “surfaced”<\/p>\n
and was living in Saudi Arabia.\n<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.No.1518\/2005:\n<\/p>\n
     23. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the<\/p>\n
First Information Report in Crime No.85\/CB\/10\/05 registered by<\/p>\n
the Cantonment Police against the petitioner under Section 468<\/p>\n
I.P.C. We have already referred to the circumstances under<\/p>\n
which the above crime has been registered by the police.         For<\/p>\n
the reasons stated by us already, we do not find any justification<\/p>\n
to allow the prayer in this case and therefore, the Crl.M.C is<\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed. In our view, the police has to be allowed<\/p>\n
to proceed with the investigation in the crime.<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     24. The sealed cover shall be returned to respondent No.1,<\/p>\n
the Director General of Police, through the office of the Director<\/p>\n
General of Prosecutions.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(Crl.)No.122\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
     25. In this writ petition, grievance of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
her husband, Dr.David Gladston Enos is under illegal detention<\/p>\n
of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Petitioner alleges that respondent<\/p>\n
No.5 along with Sri. Longton, (respondent No.4 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.27006\/2004) had forcibly taken         away her husband      to<\/p>\n
Chathannur    and thereafter     he was not seen. Curiously, Sri.<\/p>\n
Longton is not impleaded in this writ petition. It is the case of<\/p>\n
the petitioner that Respondent No.5 and his wife (respondent<\/p>\n
No.6 herein) had been detaining her husband either in India or<\/p>\n
somewhere else. It is not stated in the writ petition since when<\/p>\n
her husband had been missing. According to the petitioner, her<\/p>\n
husband had come back from Libya\/Saudi Arabia about two years<\/p>\n
back and stayed with her.     But, he was forcibly taken away by<\/p>\n
respondent No.6 and Mr.Longton.\n<\/p>\n
     26. Curiously, petitioner has stated in the writ petition that<\/p>\n
she is “in no manner desirous of staying” with her husband as he<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                              :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n“appears to be keen on living with a woman in illicit relationship.<\/p>\n
She   is agreeable for a    divorce.  Her  only  concern    is her<\/p>\n
daughter, who is aged now 23 years.”\n<\/p>\n
      27. Petitioner goes on to allege that    she had borrowed<\/p>\n
huge amounts      of money from a bank in order to look after<\/p>\n
their   daughter.    But, the whereabouts of her husband are not<\/p>\n
known     and it is only   known    to  respondents 5 and 6, the<\/p>\n
allegations go on.\n<\/p>\n
      28. When this writ petition came up for consideration before<\/p>\n
us, it was brought to our notice that the other two cases, which<\/p>\n
we have dealt with already, were also pending. It was therefore<\/p>\n
that we had called for those cases and taken up for hearing as<\/p>\n
agreed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. All the<\/p>\n
three cases were heard thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      29. As directed by us, learned Government Pleader        has<\/p>\n
obtained    instruction   from   the Sub Inspector    of    Police,<\/p>\n
Chathannur police station. The Sub Inspector    reports that    so<\/p>\n
far no    complaint has been      received  from    the petitioner<\/p>\n
regarding the disappearance of her husband. However, the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector    further states that a crime will be registered after<\/p>\n
WPC.27006\/04& Con.Cases
\n                             :: 15 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nquestioning the petitioner and recording her statement.<\/p>\n
      30. For   the reasons stated    by us    in  the preceding<\/p>\n
paragraphs, W.P.(C)No.27006\/2004 shall stand dismissed with a<\/p>\n
cost of Rs.10,000\/=.   The cost shall be paid by the petitioner to<\/p>\n
the Kerala Mediation Centre attached to the High Court within one<\/p>\n
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,<\/p>\n
failing which it shall be recovered in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
      Crl.M.C.No.1518\/2005 and W.P.(Crl) No.122\/2009 are also<\/p>\n
dismissed.   However, there will be no order as to costs        in<\/p>\n
these two cases.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
\ncl<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27006 of 2004(M) 1. MRS.GEETHA GLADSTON, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, … Respondent 2. THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, 3. R.K.VERMA, 4. LONGTON JOSEPH, 5. STATE OF KERALA, 6. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2817,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009"},"wordCount":2817,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009","name":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-30T08:29:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-geetha-gladston-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-4-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Geetha Gladston vs The Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199391","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}