Dismissed

Joly v. Director General of Prosecution

Kerala HC20 Sept 2012WP(Crl.)/461/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition filed by the parents of Joldy challenging her alleged illegal detention. The High Court observed that Joldy was married to the 6th respondent, whom she insisted on accompanying. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that the writ of habeas corpus could not be granted given the transpired facts of Joldy's voluntary decision and agreement with her husband regarding their f

What did the court decide?

The writ petition invoking habeas corpus was dismissed.

Joly Vs Director General of Prosecution — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/29TH BHADRA 1934

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 461 of 2012 (S)

¶7

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

¶8

JOLY S/O.AUGUSTIAN, POOVANTHURUTHIL HOUSE KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, PALLIKKAMURY KARA THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKIDISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.C.DILIP SRI.P.N.VIJAYAN NAIR

¶9

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

¶10

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, KERALA, KOCHI-2

¶11

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685603.

¶12

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA 685584.

¶13

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685584.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685584.

¶15

AKHIL, MAMBOOTHARA HOUSE, NEAR KORATHARA PAZHAYAKAD CHURCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 001.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN (R6)

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRU.P.M. SANEER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(CR.) NO.461/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12/9/2012 LODGED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P2: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 14/9/2012 ISSUED FROM KALIVAR POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶27

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JJ.

¶28

W.P.(Crl.) . NO. 461 OF 2012

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Pius C.Kuriakose,J

¶32

The alleged detenue , Joldy, is present before us. She told us that she is not illegally detained by anybody. She is living along with Akhil, who she claims, to be her husband.

¶33

Sri.Hariharaputhran learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent placed before us certain papers which show that the marriage between Joldy and 6^th respondent Akhil was solemnised on 16/9/2012 at Guru Kshethraanganam, Kayalpuram, which according to Mr.Hariharaputhran, means the premises of Shaka No.3620 of Kayalpuram of SNDP Yogam.

¶34

The petitioner and his wife, the parents of the alleged detenue, are also present before us. They expressed desire to

¶35

be with their daughter for some time. Though the alleged detenue Joldy was unwilling in the beginning, later she agreed .

¶36

W.P.(Crl.) No.461 /2012 2

¶37

Hence, we allowed the petitioner and his wife to be with their daughter Joldy for half an hour.

¶38

We called the case again after thirty minutes. We interacted with Joldy again. Smt.Joldy is obstinate that she will not accompany her parents. She insisted that the 6^th respondent is her husband and will go with him only. The petitioner and his wife , the parents of the alleged detenue, on being informed about the stand taken by Smt.Joldy, would tell us that they do not now insist that Joldy should accompany them. According to them, as far as they are concerned, Joldy is no longer their daughter. But, they told us that Joldy has availed an educational loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Karimannoor Branch. Joldy's mother is the sole guarantor to that loan. This loan should be liquidated by Joldy and her husband, the 6^th respondent.

¶39

This request of Joldy's parents was intimated to Joldy and Akhil. Both of them agreed that Joldy's mother will not be troubled at all in connection with the loan availed from the State of Travancore. Smt.Joldy and Akhil however requested that the parents of Joldy be directed to return certificates and other

¶40

W.P.(Crl.) No.461 /2012 3

¶41

testimonials pertaining to Joldy which are said to be in the petitioner's house. The petitioner told us that all certificates and testimonies pertaining to Joldy in his house, if any, will be returned to Joldy through her advocate in this court.

¶42

We record all that the petitioner, his wife and the alleged detenue Joldy and the 6^th respondent told us. The only question which we are called upon to decide in this writ petition is whether the writ of Habeas Corpus sought for should be granted. The above question can be answered only in the negative in the light of what was transpired in this case. We do so. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-

¶45

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

dpk

/True copy/

P.A to Judge.

W.P.(Crl.) No.461 /2012 4

¶50

W.P.(Crl.) No.461 /2012 5

Joly v. Director General of Prosecution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joly v. Director General of Prosecution

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

Aneesha Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Thomas Vs Thomaskutty Sebastian

Suveesh Vs Renuka

Roy, S/O.Poulose Vs Sherly, D/O.Mathayi

Dr.Subin Thomas Vs Smt.Elvina Abraham

Reshmi Vs Pramesh Pillai