IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 94 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHRIPAL KIRTILAL SHETH 6, KALGI APARTMENTS, TAMBOLI NO KHACHO DOSHIWADA NI POLE, RATANPOLE, KALUPUR AHMEDABAD -380 001. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULLAD. 3. C.THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, C.THOMAS CYCLES MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 549, RESIDING NEAR POLICE STATION, PULLAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI C.M.KAMMAPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.94 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner, Shripal Kirtilal Sheth, alleges that the daughter of the 3rd respondent, Nimmy Thomas and himself became acquainted and they fell in love for the past one year at the time when Nimmy Thomas was employed at Ahmedabad. They decided to get married; but the 3rd respondent prevented her from attending her employment and from contacting him. Petitioner came to Kerala on 8/1/2008; but he was unable to meet her. He apprehends that the alleged detenue is under the illegal custody of her father, the 3rd respondent. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued, the alleged detenue appeared before us. She stated that she is aged 23 years, she is a major, she was employed at Ahamedabad and she contacted with the petitioner in connection with the arrangement made for obtaining a SIM card. Obviously the petitioner is a shop owner at Ahamedabad. She even suspected that she is trapped by the petitioner. When the alleged detenue submitted before us that she is a free person and is not under -2- WP(Crl).No.94/2008 the illegal custody of her parents, which conversion we believe is a statement made voluntarily without being influenced by anybody, since the interaction with her was purely incamera. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the contention raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.