IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 399 of 2008(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMITHA MUHAMMED, D/O.BEEBI AGED 32 YEARS, DARBHAVILA HOUSE, TB JN., VALAKODE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE CONSULATE GENERAL, EMBASSY OF NDIA, BUILDING 182, ROAD 2608, AREA 326. (BEHIND RAMADA HOTEL), GHUDAIBIYA, POST BOX NO. 26106, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATHRIKKADAVU, P.O.KALOOR, COCHIN. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MUMBAI. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R3 SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R6 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R6 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1-2 SRI.ALAN PAPALI FOR DETENU SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL FOR DETENU GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.399 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging initially that her husband Muhammed Rafeek (hereinafter referred to as the alleged detenu) is illegally detained and for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to procure his presence and to set him free. It is unnecessary to advert to averments relating to the issue of a writ of habeas corpus as it is now seen that the alleged detenu has appeared before this court through counsel and the prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not pressed by the petitioner. 2. After that submission was made - that the prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not pressed, the petition has been amended to incorporate the additional prayer which reads as follows: ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to immediately intervene and make enquiries regarding the whereabouts, activities etc of the petitioner's husband through the 7th respondent in her Bahrain address and take such steps as are required to retrieve him completely from her illegal custody and clutches and to ensure that he is safely returned back to India without himself committing any culpable actions in Bahrain.” W.P.(Crl)No.399/08 2 3. The detenu, who has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed an affidavit, submits that the petitioner is his wife. He contends that there are certain disputes and disagreements between him and his wife and this petition is being filed by her with the sole intention of vexing and harassing him. He is now residing at Bahrain with his mother. The 7th respondent, who is alleged to be responsible for the alleged misdeeds of the alleged detenu, is not residing with him and she is in Mumbai now. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged detenu is under the spell of the 7th respondent and he is permitted and persuaded to commit illegal activities by the 7th respondent. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to immediately intervene and make enquiries regarding the whereabouts and activities of the alleged detenu and take steps that are required to retrieve him completely from the alleged illegal custody of the 7th respondent. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not satisfied that any further directions are liable to be issued in W.P.(Crl)No.399/08 3 this writ petition. Prima facie we are not satisfied that respondents 1 and 2 deserve to be directed to conduct any enquiry into the activities of the alleged detenu or the 7th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P10 series petitions must induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the court that the matter deserves to be probed into. We are not satisfied that mere averments in Ext.P10 raised by the petitioner are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction and direct respondents 1 and 2 to conduct such an enquiry. 6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that the petitioner's option to raise specific complaints about the alleged illegal activities of her husband, the alleged detenu or the 7th respondent shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl)No.399/08 4 W.P.(Crl)No.399/08 5 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009