IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 95 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAMMER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM. BILLUBHAVAN, VADAKKUMKARA KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR, VAZHAPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLCIE. KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JALALUDEEN,HASHEENA MANZIL, SITHARA JUNCTION, KOTTIYAM,KOLLAM. 4. SULFI, HASHEENA MANZIL, SITHARA JUNCTION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 5. SANOFAR, HASHEENA MANZIL, SITHARA JUNCTION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R3 &4 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R3 &4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(CRL).NO. 95 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 13.03.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(CRL). NO. 95 OF 2010 S --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set her at liberty. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The alleged detenu was studying for the Computer Course. Petitioner and the alleged detenu fell in love in 2007 and the relationship was continuing. They decided to get married. There is reference to the incidents in a police station. According to them, respondents 3 to 5 became convinced that the detenu is very adamant and having a strong decision to marry the petitioner and became agreeable to the same. Thus, in the presence of the second respondent, respondents 3 to 5 agreed to conduct the marriage of the detenu with the petitioner. However, it is stated that there is detention and they are WP(CRL) NO.95/2010 S 2 threatening her. 3. Today, we interacted with the alleged detenu and her brother. We also interacted with the petitioner. The alleged detenu would submit that there is no illegal detention by respondents 3 to 5 and she would like to go with her parents. In the light of this statement, we do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge