Dismissed

Mansoor K.S. v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Kerala HC18 Oct 2012WP(Crl.)/517/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the petitioner's claim that Haseena was illegally detained, noting her denial during court interaction. The petition was dismissed, but the court directed exchange of custody for articles held by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Habeas Corpus not issued; petitioner ordered to return articles held; 3rd respondent directed to return petitioner's mobile.

Mansoor K.S. Vs Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934 WP(Crl.).No. 517 of 2012 (S) ----------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

MANSOOR K.S., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.K.A.SAINUDHEEN, KATTOOKKARAN HOUSE, KUNNATHERI P.O., PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶7

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA - 680 732. 3. ABDUL KALAM, EARAVADI HOUSE, K.K.ROAD, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, MALA-680 732.

¶8

R1 & R2 BY ADV.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

¶11

WP(Crl.).No. 517 of 2012 (S)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶14

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD OF MISS HASEENA, DETENUE.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE E MAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MISS HASEENA DATED 02.10.2012.
EXT.P3:	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER AND MISS HASEENA, DETENUE.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.10.2012 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR EXHIBIT P4 FROM MALA POLICE STATION.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE MAHALLU COMMITTEE, PUTHENCHIRA EAST JAMA-ATH DATED 12.10.2012.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE MAHALLU COMMITTEE, MALA MOHIYADHEEN JUMA MASJID JAMA-ATH MAHALLU COMMITTEE DATED 12.10.2012.

¶15

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶20

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,JJ.

¶21

--------------------------------------W.P.(Crl) No.517Of 2012

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2012.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

¶25

This writ petition under Article 226 has been instituted by the petitioner who claims to be deeply in love with Haseena, the daughter of the 3^rd respondent, alleging that Haseena is being illegally detained by the 3^rd respondent, her father against her wishes. The petitioner contends on the basis of various documents produced, that the families of the petitioner as well as Haseena were initially agreeable to the proposal and at the intervention of certain organizations like NDF, the 3^rd respondent has now gone back, on his words. He has illegally detaining his daughter with the objective of preventing the marriage between him and Haseena.

¶26

On considering this writ petition for admission we directed the senior Government pleader who took notice on behalf of the Police Officers to seek instructions from them as to the correctness of the allegations and also as to action if any taken in the complaint submitted by the petitioner. We issued

¶27

W.P.(Crl) No.517Of 2012 2

¶28

notice on admission by special messenger who was directed to produce his daughter before this court today. Accordingly, Haseena is brought to this court by the 3^rd respondent her father. Sri.Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, Addl. Director General of Prosecution submitted that the father and the daughter are before this Court. We interacted with Haseena the alleged detenue in the presence of the petitioner. Haseena would stoutly refute the allegations that she is being illegally detained by her father. However she admitted that she was in love with the petitioner. But according to her at present there is no love and she does not intend to marry the petitioner. She told us that a mobile phone SIM card in her name, a book and an ID Card pertaining to her are now under the custody of Mansoor. She also told us that a mobile phone belonging to Mansoor is in her custody. She is willing to hand over the mobile phone to Mansoor's counsel today itself and the same can be returned to Mansoor.

¶29

Having interacted with the alleged detenue we are convinced that there is no warrant for issuance of the principal relief sought for in the writ petition-issuance of the writ of

¶30

W.P.(Crl) No.517Of 2012 3

¶31

Habeas Corpus to liberate Haseena from the alleged illegal detention by the 3^rd respondent. We however dispose of the writ petition directing Mansoor the petitioner to hand over all the articles belonging to Haseena which are in his custody to Haseena immediately. There will be a similar direction to 3^rd respondent to ensure that Mansoor's mobile phone which is presently in the custody of Haseena is returned to Mansoor without delay.

¶32

Sd/PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶33

Sd/BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

W.P.(Crl) No.517Of 2012 4

Mansoor K.S. v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoor K.S. v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

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

Jijimol Vs Pradeep

Shemiya a.Salam Vs Kunjumon Nishad

Akeesh S.Kumar Vs Sreelatha Banerji

Raheena Vs K.H.Akbar

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Loveji James Vs D.Bose