IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 334 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MITHUN RAJ, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.GURUPRASAD, PRASADAM, KUNNATHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY, THIRUVALLA, NOW RESIDING AT HI FI APARTMENTS, SILICON HEIGHTS, OPPOSITE TO NPOL, NGO QUARTERS, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 684 656. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 684 656. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, CHANGANASSERY - 686 101. 4. MATHEW, VADAYIL HOUSE, VEROOR P.O., CHANGANASSERY - 686 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.M.KAMAPPU R4 BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY, SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY, THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WP(CRL.) NO.334/2011 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ZTE TELECOM INDIA PVT.LTD. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER OF REVISION OF SALARY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ADECCO FLEXI ONE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. ON BEHALF OF Z T E TELECOM INDIA PVT.LTD. P3: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE DETENUE. P4: COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF PASS BOOK OF THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.31612467459 BEING MAINTAINED BY MEERA MARY MATHEW IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, RS PURAM, COIMBATORE. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, LCPC CHENNAI ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF NOMINATION MADE BY MEERA MARY MATHEW IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE DETUNE TO THE PETITIONER ON 21/04/2011. P7: COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE DETUNE TO THE PETITIONER ON 30/04/2011. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 07/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH FAX. P9: COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT OF THE FAX MESSAGE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.334 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July 2011 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The alleged detenue is present before us. She has come with her parents. We interacted with her. She is a post graduate with M.Phil and is presently doing research in a Deemed University in Coimbatore. We are sure that the petitioner and the alleged detenue know each other. She, at present, does not have any idea or desire to marry him. We record her statement that she is, on her own volition, in the company of her parents. She is in her parental home. There is no reason for us to assume that she is under threat, coercion or any persuasion which has clouded her thinking process. Having interacted with the alleged detenue on different aspects of the matter in open court, the alleged detenue has also understood the stand of the petitioner as projected by the learned counsel in oral arguments. W.P.(Crl).No.334/2011 2 2. The petitioner is apprehensive that the detenue is taking the stand that she has now, only because her relatives are present in court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, points out that a Bench of this Court in Raj Mohan v. State of Kerala [2009(4) KHC 512] had interacted the modalities in handling such a case. We have looked into the facts of that case which dealt with a detenue aged around 18 years. We are persuaded to think that while the principles of law stated in that judgment are acceptable, as regards the lady before us, we have interacted with her and are of the clear view that she is not under any persuasion by her parents to speak in the manner in which she has done today before us. Of course, the forces of love, that too paternal, maternal etc. are elements that would influence the mind but what is important for law and justice is as to whether there is undue influence and not whether there is influence that is only due under the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the view that there is no reason to order the detenue to be housed in some hostel as suggested on behalf of the petitioner. In the case in hand, if we were to do that, that may be an instance of an illegal detention W.P.(Crl).No.334/2011 3 because we do not find any authority in law to direct the said person to be housed in a hostel for any period. 3. Recording that the person before us, Meera Mary Mathew, is a free person, we close this writ petition with liberty for her to go either with the parents or otherwise in accordance with her choice. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. (sd/-) (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (sd/-) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge