IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 78 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MICHAEL, CHARANKKATTU HOUSE, THUMBOLI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PANOOR POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. 3. BHASKARAN, PARAMBANTEVIDA, PANNIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, CHEMBAD (P.O), PANOOR, THALASSERY. 4. NIJALA, D/O. BHASKARAN, PANNIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, CHEMBAD (P.O), PANOOR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN SMT.N.SANTHA, ADV.COMMR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(CRL).No.78/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8/2/08 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE DETENUE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER AND DETENUE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, THALASSERY. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.78 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner alleges that the daughter of the 4th respondent by name Neethu, who was a M.Sc. student at Shanmugha College, Thalassery, the alleged detenue in this case, is kept under the illegal custody of her parents. It is also alleged that based on the strength of agreement (Ext.P1) between the petitioner and the detenue, they have decided to live as husband and wife. Petitioner belongs to Christian Community whereas the detenue belongs to Hindu Ezhava Community. They have also given notice under the Special Marriage Act before the Sub Registrar's Office, Alappuzha. Some photographs were also produced. It was while the marriage has taken place on 4/3/2008 that the detenue was forcibly taken from the house of the petitioner by ten persons under the leadership of the 3rd respondent and the Uncle of the detenue, when the petitioner was at Ernakulam. In order to ascertain the true or otherwise of the statement made in the writ petition, we appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the place of residence of --2-- WP(Crl).No.78/2008 the alleged detenue and to submit a report before this Court, after interacting with her. But the petitioner did not remit the Commissioner's fee. As such the Commissioner could not go. Thus, the opportunity given to substantiate the contention made in the writ petition was not availed by the petitioner. 2. In the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery on 19th March, 2008, a copy of which is made available to us by the learned Government pleader, he held that based on a complaint made by the alleged detenue's mother, a search was conducted and the alleged detenue was found out and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kannur on 4/3/2008. As he was on leave, the Magistrate directed the girl to be appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court on 6/3/2008. But on 6/3/2008 there was Harthal in Thalassery and the case was posted to 10/3/2008 and then to 19/3/2008 for appearance of the girl. The girl did not appear on 19/3/2008. But the mother of the alleged detenue was represented by the counsel and stated that the girl is admitted in the hospital, as she is suffering from mental disorder and a medical certificate is also produced. The Magistrate, prima facie, being satisfied with the contention, dispensed with the personal --3-- WP(Crl).No.78/2008 appearance of the girl and the CMP was closed. The correctness or otherwise of the order is not a matter to be considered in this proceeding. If the petitioner has got any grievance against the said order for any reason, it is open to him to challenge the said order in an appropriate Forum. However, since the petitioner has already filed a complaint before the police, they will investigate the complaint and proceed in accordance with law. It is also open to the petitioner to file any private complaint. 3. Leaving open all such right of the petitioner, we close this writ petition. At this stage of the proceeding, no further direction could be issued by this Court, since the matter is already seized by the police and also by the Magistrate. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.