Dismissed

Muhammedali v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010WP(Crl.)/501/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition concerning an allegedly illegally detained brother, the High Court found the detenu had been traced and produced. It dismissed the petition without further directions, emphasizing that this does not stop the police investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no further directions issued in the writ petition. Police investigation to continue.

Muhammedali Vs State of Kerala & Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶4

WP(Crl.).No. 501 of 2010(S) -----------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶6

MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, 31 YEARS, POOKOTTUKULAM VEEDU, POST THATHANAMPULLY, KULUKALLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORANUR-679 121.

¶11

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM-679 101.

¶12

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM-679 101.

¶13

5. NISSAR, S/O.ABDULLA, KOROLATHIL, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, CHELAKKAD DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.-673 506.

¶14

6. ASHARAF, S/O.MOIDU, MEETHALEKKUZHIKANDIYIL, VALAYAM DESOM,CHERUMOTH DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 517.

¶15

7. SHAN @ SHANAVAS, S/O.AMMED, POLERI HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, CHELAKKAD DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN-673 506.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.501/2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 14.12.2010 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶27

WPCR No.501 of 2010

¶28

Dated this the 20^th December, 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Basant, J.

¶31

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for trace and produce his brother Sulfikar who was allegedly missing from 13.12.2010. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenu was forcibly taken away and was being detained and confined illegally by persons including respondents 5 to 7. This petition was filed on 17.12.2010. It was admitted on the same date. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case stands posted to 23.12.2010.

¶32

This Writ Petition is being called today at the request of the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that the alleged detenu had appeared before the Ottappalam Police Station today and the police had straight away taken him to this Court as the matter stands posted to 23.12.2010. The petitioner is

¶33

wpcr No.501/2010 2

¶34

present. The petitioner is represented by his counsel.

¶35

The petitioner and the alleged detenu submit that

¶36

they do not seek any further directions in the matter. The alleged detenu having been traced and having appeared before this Court, we are satisfied that he is not now under any illegal confinement or detention. It is not necessary to issue any further directions in this case. However, we take note of the nature of the allegations raised. Crime No.766/2010 of Shornur Police Station has already been registered. The learned Government Pleader submits that the investigation is in progress. We need only mention that the mere fact that we are discontinuing further proceedings in this writ petition does not ipso facto mean that the police must discontinue the investigation into Crime No.766/2010. The police shall have to complete investigation in accordance with law. The mere fact that the petitioner or the alleged detenu now conveniently state that they have no grievance against any one is according to us, no reason to discontinue the criminal proceedings, though we have satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenu, is not under any illegal confinement or

¶37

wpcr No.501/2010 3

¶38

detention now and choose not to proceed further with this writ petition.

¶39

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the

¶40

above observations.

¶41

R.BASANT JUDGE

¶42

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶43

css/

Muhammedali v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammedali v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duke.P.Pattachery Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Muhammed @ Innippa Vs Palembadiyan Kodrapurathu Cheeku

Karanjiv Singh Sethi Vs Mrs.Eshwin Kaur

Ajayakumar @ John Vs Nisha P. @ Mary

P.Nandakumar Vs M.P.Latha

Thangalkunju Vs Shahida