Allowed

George Joseph v. the State Police Chief

Kerala HC21 Nov 2018WP(Crl.)/452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by father seeking habeas corpus regarding daughter's alleged illegal confinement for religious conversion. Daughter produced and stated conversion was voluntary; petitioner sought withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Permission granted to withdraw. Detenue permitted to return to respondent 4's institution with directions to respondent 3.

George Joseph Vs the State Police Chief — 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

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VARKEY, EMBRAYIL HOUSE, ELLUMPURAM P.O., MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 587

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE – 673 004

¶15

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE – 673 001

¶16

4 K.V.ALIKOYA, MANAGER, THARBIYATHUL ISLAM SABHA, MUKHADAR, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶17

5 SADIQUE ALI, KANAYANPLAKAL HOUSE, ANAKAYAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676509.

¶18

6 P.A.HAMEED & ASSOCIATES, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-676002.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI. K.B.RAMANAND R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 2 :

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

¶25

The above writ petition is filed by the father of a girl named Merin George, seeking

¶26

a writ of Habeas corpus for commanding production of her corpus and to set her at

¶27

liberty, based on an allegation that she is under illegal confinement of the respondents 4 and 5.

¶28

2. Brief facts averred in the writ

¶29

petition are that, Miss.Merin George (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') is a student of Chartered Accountancy, now employed in the 6^th respondent’s firm. She was staying in the house of the petitioner in connection with a retreat attended by her, and she left to her place of work at Kozhikode, on 8.11.2018.

¶30

But on that day evening, the petitioner

¶31

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 3 :

¶32

received a call from the 4^th respondent stating that, the alleged detenue is in his custody. It is mentioned that the 4^th respondent is the Manager of an Institution imparting teachings in religious matters of Muslim community. It is stated that, enquiries conducted by the petitioner had revealed that, the alleged detenue was taken to and admitted at the 4^th respondent's institution by the 5^th respondent, who was having acquaintance with her at the time when she was doing internship at Kochi. According to the petitioner, the 5^th respondent had induced the alleged detenue to convert to the religion of Islam through persistent brainwashing and compulsion. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue had taken the decision to convert to Islam, without properly knowing about the

¶33

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 4 :

¶34

consequences. Hence, alleging that the detenue is admitted to the 4^th respondent's institution against her free will and that she is under illegal confinement, the above writ petition is filed.

¶35

3. When the case came up for admission on 14.11.2018, this Court issued notice to the respondents 4 and 5 and directed the alleged detenue to be produced before this Court on 23.11.2018. But the case was taken up for consideration on today based on motion made by the learned Government Pleader, submitting that the alleged detenue is produced before this Court on today. A counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the 4^th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner had informed this Court that the petitioner and his wife along with the younger sister of the alleged detenue had

¶36

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 5 :

¶37

met the alleged detenue at the 4^th respondent's institution on 16.11.2018. But on their way back to Thodupuzha they met with a road traffic accident at a place near to Thodupuzha, in which all of them had sustained very severe injuries. It is stated that all of them are undergoing treatment at the Malankara Medical Mission Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. It is further stated that the petitioner had expressed his wish to meet the alleged detenue at the hospital and to persuade her to stay there for taking care of the family members undergoing treatment. It is on that basis, the alleged detenue is produced before this Court on today.

¶38

4. When we interacted, the alleged detenue said that, she got attracted with the principles and teachings of Islam,

¶39

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 6 :

¶40

through some of her friends, since the last few years. She herself had taken a decision to convert to that Community. She said that she is now staying in the 4^th respondent's institution in order to attend a course which is mainly imparting knowledge on the principles and teachings of that Community. She said that the decision with respect to the religious conversion was taken on her own will and wish and there is absolutely no compulsion or coercion from the side of any other persons or organizations.

¶41

5. With respect to the request made on behalf of the petitioner to the alleged detenue to stay at the Medical College Hospital and to take care of the parents and sister, she expressed her willingness negatively.

¶42

5. Confronted with the above situation,

¶43

WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2018 : 7 :

¶44

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner intimated this Court that, he is not intending to pursue this writ petition further. On that basis, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the above writ petition.

¶45

Permission granted. The above writ petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. The alleged detenue is permitted to go back

¶46

to the 4^th respondent's institution, as desired by her. The 3^rd respondent is directed to take back her to the 4^th respondent's institution.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

¶49

[True copy] P.A to Judge

George Joseph v. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Joseph v. the State Police Chief

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

Sharafunnisa Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jaya Biju, Vs District Police Chief

Muhammed Jaseel B. Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Kumar Vs Pradeep Mohan Warrier

Rajesh P.V. Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar.N Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)