Disposed

Prameela. a v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016WP(C)/25290/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a victim, now a major, detained in a government home, is entitled as of right to live her own life and enjoy fundamental rights. However, considering safety threats, the respondent must ensure protection during the pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to detain petitioner forcefully in Government Girls' Home; First Respondent to ensure adequate protection during trial.

Prameela. a Vs Station House Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25290 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

PRAMEELA. A AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNA KULAL, ARJUNAGULI HOUSE, MADHUR, PATTLA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE, NOW RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT CHILDRENS' HOME FOR GIRLS, KAKKANAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. PRESIDENT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 25290 of 2016 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXHIBIT P1	: TRUE COPY OF AADHAR CARD NO. 26187061 8248 DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P2	: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 03.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT P3	: TRUE COPY OF SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 02.11.2016 ISSUED BY CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, EDAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P4	: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 03.06.2016 ISSUED BY CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, EDAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P5	: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 04.06.2016 ISSUED TO ME BY THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD WORKING WOMEN'S HOSTEL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P6	: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. (C). NO. 28139/2011
EXHIBIT P7	: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.03.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.P.NO. 61/6
EXHIBIT P8	: TRUE COPY OF INVITATION CARD DATED 04.12.2016 FOR ENGAGEMENT

¶18

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

DCS

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶23

W.P.(C). NO. 25290 OF 2016

¶24

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner is a victim in respect of a sessions case namely, S.C. 14/2015 pending trial on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ernakulam. The said case arose from Crime No. 548/2011 of Varapuzha Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373, 506(1), 376 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act. At the time of registration of the crime, petitioner was allegedly a minor and consequent on her production before the Magistrate on 13.08.2011, she was directed to be accommodated at Government Girls' Home, Kakkanad. Petitioner is a native of Kasargod District and her family members are residing at Kasargod. It is submitted, on attaining majority, Government provided an employment and at present she is working as an attendant at I.C.D.S. Project Office, Edappally on and with effect from 08.07.2015.

¶27

W.P.(C). NO. 25290 OF 2016 2

¶28

The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, though she had attained the age of majority and is capable of living independently, the second respondent is not permitting her to shift her accommodation to a place of her choice, on the ground that court order is required for allowing the same. It is also stated petitioner intends to continue her education by joining private tuition centre, after her employment. These are the circumstances, which persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court, by filing this writ petition.

¶29

A statement is filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein the narration of facts made by the petitioner is approved. However, among other contentions, it is stated that, the family of the petitioner is unable to take care of her. Her elder sister and her husband are accused in this case. Petitioner belongs to a poor family, and it is bearing in mind those aspects, the Government of Kerala have provided an employment to the petitioner. It is also stated some of the accused in the case are highly influential, and the main accused is a notorious criminal

¶30

W.P.(C). NO. 25290 OF 2016 3

¶31

involved in many criminal cases including murder case, and she is now on bail, and there is every likelihood of danger to the life of the petitioner. The second respondent has also filed a statement almost on similar lines and apprehension to the life of the petitioner is also voiced. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and also contending that as a major, she is entitled to enjoy the fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Respondents have no manner of authority or power vested in them to detain the petitioner or have forcible custody of the petitioner in the Government Girls' Home. The petitioner is entitled as of right to live her on life. It is also stated that she is getting married very soon, and the petitioner is thereupon entitled to lead a life along with her bridegroom.

¶32

Along with the reply affidavit filed to the statement filed by the first respondent, the petitioner has produced a Division Bench judgment of this Court, marked as Ext. P7 in R.P. No. 61/2016 in W.P.(C). No. 28139/2011, dated 02.03.2016, wherein a similar question was

¶33

W.P.(C). NO. 25290 OF 2016 4

¶34

considered by this Court, and held that no legal provisions enable to detain or forcefully keep in custody a major, and release was ordered, however, subject to certain safety precautions.

¶35

Taking note of the respective submissions made across the bar, and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, I am of the considered opinion, petitioner being a major is entitled as of right to live her own life, enjoying the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. But, however fact remains, she is a victim of a brutal act exercised by the accused, large in number involved in the sessions case, when she was a minor. The Government as well as the second respondent are apprehending danger and threat to the life of the petitioner. Moreover totality of facts and circumstances, shows that, the offence involved is having lot of social ramifications and the government have a duty to ensure that trial of the sessions case takes place in a free, fair and impartial manner. The society at large is also anxious to know the outcome of the incident. Petitioner, who is the victim of the crime, also is entitled as of right to

¶36

W.P.(C). NO. 25290 OF 2016 5

¶37

participate in the trial without any fear and apprehension of danger. That being the situation, sufficient protection is to be given in order to ensure safe life of the petitioner, which is a duty cast upon the Government.

¶38

For the forgoing discussion, there will be a direction not to detain the petitioner forcefully in the Government Girls' Home, Kakkanad and she will be at liberty to live her own life. However, the first respondent shall ensure adequate and necessary protection to the life of the petitioner in due course, especially during the time, when the trial is going on and if required, necessary arrangements shall be made to transport the petitioner from wherever she is residing to the court and back. The directions contained above shall be scrupulously followed by the Government without fail.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

DCS

Prameela. a v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prameela. a v. Station House Officer

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

Amminikutty Vs Sasikala

Vivek G. Vs State of Kerala

K.Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajamani Vs Ikf Finance Limited

Saroja Zacharia Vs Branch Manager

Janisha P.P Vs the Tahsildar