Dismissed

Mohammed Sabith v. Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC3 Jul 2012WP(Crl.)/306/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard a writ petition alleging illegal confinement of a girl. During hearing, the alleged detenue appeared and stated she is not detained and does not wish to marry. Finding she is a free person, the Court closed the petition without issuing directions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition (Criminal) is closed as the alleged detenue is found to be a free person with no illegal detention.

Mohammed Sabith Vs Superintendent 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

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 306 of 2012 (S)

¶8

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

MOHAMMED SABITH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.UNNI MOHAMED, OORIMANNIL KAZHAKUNNUMMEL HOUSE KADAMBODE P.O., PANDIKKAD VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶12

SRI.ABDUL SHUKOOR MUNDAMBRA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶15

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI POLICE STATION

¶17

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121.

¶18

RAJAGOPAL M.P SUDARSHANA, VYAPARAPADI, MANJERI P.O. 676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADV. SMT.ARCHANA NARAYANAN BY A.D.G.P. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED.(R1 & R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0307-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(Crl.).No. 306 of 2012 (S)

¶22

A P P E N D I X

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD OF LAKSHMI KRISHNA.

¶25

TGS

¶26

(TRUE COPY)

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(Crl) No.306 of 2012

¶29

Dated 3^rd July, 2012. J U D G M E N T

¶30

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he fell in love with the daughter of the third respondent about three years back. They decided to solemnize their marriage. It is alleged that from 12.6.2012 onwards, the whereabouts of the daughter of the third respondent are not known. It is stated in the Writ Petition (Criminal) that the petitioner apprehends that the life of the girl is in danger and she is in the illegal confinement of the third respondent in an unknown place.

¶32

The petitioner, the third respondent and his daughter (the alleged detenue) are present before Court. We interacted with them. The alleged detenue stated in clear terms that she does not want to marry the petitioner and that she is not under the illegal confinement or detention of the third respondent. She stated that she was on pilgrimage to several places and the Writ Petition(Criminal) was filed at that time. The petitioner stated to us that the Writ Petition (Criminal) was filed as requested by the alleged detenue. She denied the same.

¶33

W.P.(Crl) 306 of 2012

¶34

¶35

The alleged detenue stated that her electoral

¶36

identity card, PAN card, ATM card, Birth Certificate and mobile phone are with the petitioner. We enquired with the petitioner as to whether the statement is correct. He stated that those articles were with him, but on the pressure from the side of the third respondent, his relatives handed over the documents to the third respondent's people. He also stated that whatever documents are found to be available with him on search will be given to the daughter of the third respondent.

¶37

Since the alleged detenue is not under illegal detention and since she is a free person, no directions are required to be issued in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition (Criminal) is, accordingly, closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶42

tgs

¶43

(true copy)

Mohammed Sabith v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sabith v. Superintendent of Police

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

Anilkumar K.P Vs v.K.Jayasreemol

Mujeeb Rahiman Vs Shimcia

V.P.Kavitha Ranjini @ Urvashi Vs Sri. Manoj K.Jayan

Anilkumar.K.P. Vs v.K.Jayasreemol

Sofia David Vs Titus Thomas

Surabhi Vs State of Kerala