Disposed

Pushpa v. District Police Chie, Thrissur

Kerala HC6 Sept 2018WP(Crl.)/311/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court received a writ petition for habeas corpus regarding the alleged illegal confinement of Mrs. Remya by the third respondent. After producing the detenue, the Court noted she was in judicial custody pursuant to Magistrate's orders and expressed willingness to return to her petitioner home. The Court remitted her to jail to pursue bail before the Magistrate and disposed of the writ. No

What did the court decide?

Release on habeas corpus denied. Petitioner remitted to jail to seek bail from the Magistrate.

Pushpa Vs District Police Chie, Thrissur — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018/15TH BHADRA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 311 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

PUSHPA

¶9

AGED 60, W/O.KRISHNAN, KUNNAMKULATH HOUSE,POONKUNNAM LINK ROAD, POONKUNNAM,THRISSUR WEST, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. A. BALAGOPALAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION,THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

¶14

3 PRADEESH KUMAR K.C. S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KAPPIYEDATH HOUSE,AREEKKOODE, VETTILAPPARA, ERNAD,MALAPPURAM, PIN-673 639.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER -SRI. K.B RAMANAND

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 /2018

-:2:-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 OF 2018 S

¶25

------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6^th day of September, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶28

The petitioner is approaching this court raising an allegation that the wife of his son Mrs.Remya(hereinafter

¶29

referred to as 'the alleged detenue') is under illegal confinement

¶30

of the 3^rd respondent, against her free will. The above case is

¶31

filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the corpus of the alleged detenue and to set her at liberty.

¶32

Averments in brief are that the petitioner's son

¶33

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 /2018

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Mr.Gireesh had married the alleged detenue in the year 2003

¶36

and two children were born out of their wedlock, who are now

¶37

aged 14 and 10 years, respectively. The petitioner's son is working abroad and the alleged detenue along with the children were staying with the petitioner. The alleged detenue was seen missing from the house since 04.07.2018. The petitioner came to know that she had gone along with the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the 2^nd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P1, based on which a case was registered at the Thrissur West Police Station under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, as Crime No.524/2018. Alleging that the police authorities are not taking any earnest efforts to trace out the alleged detenue and also alleging that the 3^rd respondent is keeping illegal custody of the alleged detenue, the above writ petition is filed.

¶38

Notice issued from this court to the 3^rd respondent was returned unserved stating that he is out of station. We had issued direction to the 1^st respondent to intensify the

¶39

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 /2018

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

investigation and to trace out the alleged detenue. When the case was posted on 03.09.2018, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, the alleged detenue appeared before the 2^nd respondent on 31.08.2018 and she was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur, in view of the fact that the case registered was altered to one pending under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is stated that the alleged detenue was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial First Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur,. This court there upon directed production of the alleged detenue before the this court on today. Accordingly the alleged detenue is produced before this court on today.

¶42

When we interacted the alleged detenue said that

¶43

she had gone from the house of the petitioner along with the 3^rd respondent. However, she said that she is intending to go back to the petitioner's home to lead a life with her children and her

¶44

husband. But, we take note of the fact that the alleged detenue

¶45

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 /2018

¶46

-:5:-

¶47

is now under judicial custody as per the orders issued by the Magistrate's court. Therefore the alleged detenue is hereby sent back to the jail. It is made clear that the alleged detenue will be

¶48

at liberty to move for bail before the Magistrate's court concerned.

¶49

The above writ petition is hereby disposed of subject to the above observations.

¶50

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶51

Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

W.P.(Crl) No. 311 /2018

¶56

-:6:-

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DTD.4.7.2018.

¶60

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 04.7.2018 PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Pushpa v. District Police Chie, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa v. District Police Chie, 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

Sandhya Rose Vs Shan George

Bijukumari Vs Sreekumar

Santhini Vs Superintendant of Police

Kundil Parekkat Usman Vs Thoombil Sakkeena

Anil Raj Vs Rimmy

Usman.T.M Vs State of Kerala