Dismissed

Deepu.R.Darsan @ Archana Raj, v. Prakashan

Kerala HC26 Nov 2018WP(Crl.)/457/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ of Habeas corpus alleging illegal detention of his former partner/detenue. Respondents produced the detenue in Court. Detenue denied marriage plans with petitioner and threatened by him. Petitioner sought withdrawal. Court granted permission to withdraw and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Deepu.R.Darsan @ Archana Raj, Vs Prakashan — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

MONDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

DEEPU.R.DARSAN @ ARCHANA RAJ, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 23 YEARS, VADAYAMPARA HOUSE, PERUVANNAMOOZHI P.O., PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 PRAKASHAN,

¶14

FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, CHERIYA KARYATTU HOUSE, MEPPAYIL P.O.,VATAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673101.

¶15

2 ANITHA, W/O.PRAKASHAN, CHERIYA KARYATTU HOUSE, MEPPAYIL P.O., VATAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101.

¶16

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101.

¶17

4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101.

¶18

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT(VATAKARA RURAL), PUDUPPANAM P.O., VATAKARA VIA, PIN-673 105.

¶19

R3 TO R5 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2018 : 2 :

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶25

The petitioner is approaching this Court raising an allegation that the respondents 1 and 2 are illegally detaining Miss.Darsana Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue'), who is the daughter of those respondents, against her free will. On that basis, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas corpus for commanding production of the alleged detenue and to set her at liberty.

¶26

2. It is stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner was a girl and her name was Archana

¶27

Raj. She had undergone a 'gender reassignment surgery' in October, 2018, as evidenced from Ext.P2 Discharge Summary Certificate. It is stated that, the petitioner and the alleged detenue were

¶28

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2018 : 3 :

¶29

working together and there was a decision taken by

¶30

them to live together. It was decided that they will solemnize a marriage, after the petitioner transferring her gender. According to the petitioner, it is in accordance with the said decision, the 'gender reassignment surgery' was undergone. But the petitioner came to know that the marriage of the alleged detenue is fixed with another person by her family members, without her consent. Now the respondents 1 and 2 are not permitting the petitioner to contact the alleged detenue and they are detaining her under confinement, is the allegations. It is under such circumstances the above writ petition is filed.

¶31

3. Pursuant to the notice issued from this Court, the respondents 1 and 2 appeared and produced the alleged detenue before this Court, on today. When we interacted, the alleged detenue said that she is a graduate in BCA and had

¶32

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2018 : 4 : completed the age of 22 years. She is now undergoing coaching for PSC tests. She confessed that she know the petitioner while she was working in a 'home appliance shop' at Vatakara. The petitioner was working as a 'sales girl' in another branch of the said shop. The alleged detenue said that, the petitioner had married a man, before she had undergone the 'gender reassignment surgery'. It is stated that, the alleged detenue and her brother had participated in the said marriage ceremony. But it was learnt that the person who married the petitioner had left to Gulf countries. The alleged detenue had emphatically denied the allegation that there was a decision between the petitioner and the alleged detenue to get married each other. According to the alleged detenue, her marriage is now fixed with another person, which is scheduled to be conducted in January, 2019. The alleged detenue

¶33

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2018 : 5 :

¶34

made complaints against the petitioner for having raised threats and making attempts of blackmailing

¶35

against her.

¶36

4. Being confronted with the above

¶37

situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the above writ petition.

¶38

Permission is granted. The above writ petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. The alleged

¶39

detenue is permitted to go along with the respondents 1 and 2, as desired by her.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Deepu.R.Darsan @ Archana Raj, v. Prakashan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu.R.Darsan @ Archana Raj, v. Prakashan

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

Wolter Antony Harrison Vs Agnus Harrison

Anilkumar Vs Treesa

Anootha Chandran Vs D.B.R Prabhu

Hunaismoosa, Vs the State Police Chief Police

Navaf Vs Shima

Jessy Sunil Vs the Circle Inspector of Police