IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 416 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: NOORUDHEEN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.IBHRAHIM KUNHI.P.V, MOOVVAKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHECK POST, P.O.THANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH SRI.P.BENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR-670003. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670003. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED T.K.SHAFEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM.K., THEEYARKANDI HOUSE, EACHUR (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001. Impleaded as per order dated 01.12.2011 in IA 19336/2011 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI.R.PADMARAJ FOR R1-3 SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPCR 416/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR REGISTERED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.416 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan J. The alleged detenue, namely Zahanas, is present before us. She has sworn to an affidavit dated 01.12.2011 before Advocate Jobi Jose Kondody, who appears for the additional respondent. She has clearly stated her views in the matter. 2. We also have the affidavit of the additional fourth respondent T.K.Shafeer. We do not approve the legality of the so called marriage stated to have been held in Bangalore. We do so because, the petitioner, father of Zahanas, had candidly told us that he did not go for the marriage and he had no intention or never intended to give her in marriage. Within a short span of time, nobody will WPCR 416/2011 2 give permission, in lieu of the father or his representative for the purpose of Nikkah, which is the customary marriage under the Muslim Law. 3. For the aforesaid circumstances, additional fourth respondent and Zahanas have told us that they will undergo marriage in terms of the Special Marriage Act and such statement is there in their affidavits also. We record the said statement. 4. We have also an affidavit filed by K.Ibrahim, the father of the fourth respondent. He says that he swears to the affidavit on behalf of his wife Rukhiya also. This means that Ibrahim and Rukhiya, the parents of the additional fourth respondent, stand bound by the averments in the affidavit of Ibrahim sworn to on 01.12.2011 before Advocate Jobi Jose Kondody. We record their statement in that affidavit that they will take care of the situation and that additional fourth respondent and Zahanas will have a WPCR 416/2011 3 marriage in terms of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 5. Recording the aforesaid affidavits, we permit Zahanas to go with the parents of the additional fourth respondent and additional fourth respondent, on the clear undertaking that additional fourth respondent and Zahanas will have their marriage in terms of the Special Marriage Act and produce the certificate of such marriage before the Registrar (General) of this Court on or before 21.01.2012. The parents of the additional fourth respondent will ensure that such certificate is produced. A duly authenticated copy of the certificate of marriage shall be handed over to Advocate C.K.Sreejith, on behalf of the petitioner. We also record that parents of Zahanas will ensure that any of her personal papers and documents, including the passport, is given back to her through the counsel appearing in this case. WPCR 416/2011 4 This writ petition is ordered accordingly. The Registry will list up this matter before the Registrar (General) on 23.01.2012 for verifying production of the certificate, unless the Registrar (General) calls up the case on production of the certificate earlier. The Registry will bring to the notice of the bench any instance of failure to comply with the directions contained in this judgment. Before parting, we are persuaded by learned Government Pleader Sri.Padmaraj that the observations in the order that we made yesterday against the conduct of the police officers may be re-considered. Today, we had the District Police Chief before us. We heard him personally. We find that he had taken keen interest in the process of investigation. We are sure that he has also understood whatever version the court told him as to the possible lacuna which might have escaped notice of the superior officers. The issuance of that order yesterday was WPCR 416/2011 5 essentially to ensure that public does not lose faith in the police establishment and also in the judicial establishment. The totality of the facts prima facie show that all was not well, regarding the action taken by the investigators. We are satisfied of the explanation given by the District Police Chief on his impression about the officers under his command. We, therefore, clarify that we do not intend the order issued yesterday to be treated for any purpose, as containing any adverse remarks or comments which would put against any officer personally. The said order and the situation in this case could be taken for proper guidance in future. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv