Disposed

Rehna, v. the Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC2 Jul 2019WP(C)/14977/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a mother alleging illegalities by respondents 4-7. The Court found no need for positive direction regarding police conduct but clarified that the cross-reported statements are merely prima facie and do not regulate future investigation or trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The Court directed the police to make an enquiry if the petitioner raises any complaint.

Rehna, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.14977 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

REHNA,AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. RASHEED, RESIDING AT MOOKKANZHIKAM, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001.

¶14

2 THE ASSISTANT CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001

¶15

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301

¶16

4 SAJEERA, AGED 30 YEARS W/O. SULPHICKER, SUMA MANDIRAM, PAMPINTHODI, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301

¶17

5 PHARHAN, S/O. AZAD, SUMA MANDIRAM, PAMPINTHODI, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301

¶18

6 AZAD,

¶19

SUMA MANDIRAM, PAMPINTHODI, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR,

¶20

WP(C) No.14977/2019

¶21

¶22

KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301

¶23

7 SHAHEEN, S/O. AZAD, SUMA MANDIRAM, PAMPINTHODI, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 301.

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SR.GP.SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.14977/2019

JUDGMENT

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved with the alleged illegalities perpetrated by the respondents 4 to 7. The back ground of the the case is that the petitioner's son eloped with the 4^th respondent. A man missing complaint was registered on the complaint of the petitioner's husband. The Police conducted enquiries and traced out the son and produced him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The Jurisdictional Magistrate allowed him to live according to his wishes finding that he is a major. The son accompanied the petitioner to their house. Later, the 4^th respondent is said to have registered a complaint alleging that under the promise of marriage the son of the petitioner lived along with her and had conjugal relationship. Subsequently a complaint was preferred

¶32

by the petitioner on which the police had conducted enquiry. It is stated by the Jurisdictional Police that there was absolutely no evidence as to the

¶33

WP(C) No.14977/2019

¶34

¶35

allegations raised and there is no substantiating material to find that there was any illegal act perpetrated by respondents 4 to 7. In such circumstances, we do not think that there is any need for a positive direction. But, however, if the petitioner raises any complaint the police would make appropriate enquiry. We make it clear that the statements made on the crime registered are merely prima facie, and would not at all regulate the investigation or trial if it is so commenced or a charge framed.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to

¶37

costs.

¶38

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

jma

¶41

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge

WP(C) No.14977/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30-032019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT

Rehna, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehna, v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Mansoor Ibrahim.M.v., Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Ramdas.P.R Vs State of Kerala

Aniyamma Mathew Vs the District Police Chief

V.N.Joy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Haneef Shiroz Vs State of Kerala

Sajina Chidangil Vs Rajitha M.P