Allowed

Vijayan v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC27 Jun 2012WP(Crl.)/299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a father to secure the release of his 21-year-old daughter, who had been detained following an incident involving a fourth respondent. The daughter expressed a desire to return home, and the court allowed her release with her father.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the alleged detenue is permitted to go with her father, the petitioner.

Vijayan Vs the Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934 WP(Crl.).No. 299 of 2012 (S)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VIJAYAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOTTAKAKAM VEETTIL, PERUNGAZHI AZHOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶11

POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶12

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶13

ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶15

CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 304.

¶17

SANTHOSH

¶18

S/O.RAJAMMA, KHAN COLONY, MURIKKUMPUZHA PO-695 302

¶19

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

MANJU, AGED 26 YEARS

¶21

W/O.SANTHOSH, THOPPIL VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL

¶22

MURIKKUMPUZHA P.O-695 302

¶23

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶24

BY A.D.G.P., SHTI K I ABDUL RASHEED

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(CRL.) 299 OF 2012

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER ON 11.6.2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.400/2012 OF CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶32

// TRUE COPY //

¶33

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No.299 of 2012 S

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶36

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

K.T. Sankaran J.,

¶39

The alleged detenue is the daughter of the petitioner. She is aged 21 years. The allegation is that the 4^th respondent, an auto rickshaw driver and who is a married person (with a wife and a child), enticed the alleged detenue and took her away from her house.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submitted that on a

¶41

petition filed by the petitioner, Crime No.400 of 2012 was registered at Chirayinkeezhu Police Station under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The alleged detenue and the fourth respondent were traced out and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Attingal. The learned Magistrate allowed the alleged detenue to go with her parents. It is also submitted that

¶42

W.P.(Crl.) No.299 of 2012 :2:

¶43

the offence alleged against the fourth respondent was changed as 498-A and 494 of the Indian penal Code, on finding that the fourth respondent is a married man and on the allegation that he had committed an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the wife of the fourth respondent had filed a petition before the Police alleging the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the fourth respondent. It is also submitted that the fourth respondent was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Attingal.

¶44

The petitioner and his daughter are present. The alleged detenue stated in clear terms that she wants to go with her parents.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the alleged detenue is allowed to go with her father, the petitioner.

¶46

K.T. SANKARAN,

¶47

(JUDGE)

¶48

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶49

dl/

Vijayan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep Kumar.a Vs Sujitha

Lijoy Vs Ditty

Sarojini Vs T.Sunilkumar

Subair Vs Asma and Others

Ajithkumar T.K. Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mini Varghese Vs State of Kerala