IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 442 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAKRISHNA.R., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, LAKSHMICKAL, AKAMKUDI P.O., NANGIYARKULANGASRA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 513. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HARILAL.N.K., LAL BHAVAN, NANGYARKULANGARA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 513. 2. SHALINI SUNIL, W/O.SUNIL, LAL BHAVAN, NANGYARKULANGARA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 513. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 513. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEAER SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce `Anjali Lal' - a young woman aged above 30 years (date of birth - 25/2/1980). She is a B.Tch. graduate. She was employed earlier. She is not employed now. 2. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenu - Anjali Lal, were known to each other. They have decided to get married. The proposal for marriage does not have the approval of the relatives of the alleged detenue. The 1st respondent is the father and the 2nd respondent is the sister of the alleged detenue. The petitioner alleged that the alleged detenue Anjali Lal is under the illegal confinement and detention of respondents 1 W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 2 :- and 2. He hence came to this Court with this petition on 10/11/10. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We perused the records. We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons do exist to infer that there is any illegal confinement or detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner showed us certain photographs which he said that his client has in his possession. The petitioner - a person of dignity and self-respect, did not want to produce the photographs before court. We, in these circumstances, posted the case on 11/11/10 to this day and requested the learned Government Pleader to take instructions. 4. Today, when the case is called, the learned Government Pleader submits that the police is satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. The learned Government Pleader submits that the alleged detenue is willing to appear before this Court to make her decision/response clear. We accordingly permitted the alleged detenue to appear before us in the Chamber at 1.45 p.m. 5. After the lunch recess at 1.45 p.m. we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent - sister of the alleged detenue W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 3 :- herself a lawyer as also the learned learned Government Pleader were present. 6. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to her, she wants to return along with respondents 1 and 2 and does not want to go with the petitioner. The petitioner wanted an opportunity to interact with the alleged detenue in private. But the alleged detenue stated categorically that she does not want to have any such interaction. The alleged detenue stated categorically that she wants to have nothing to do with the petitioner and wants to return along with respondents 1 and 2. Her marriage is already fixed, she submitted. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. From our interaction with the alleged detenue, we are satisfied that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary. 8. The petitioner and the counsel fairly accepted that some photographs which are available with the petitioner can be returned to the alleged detenue. The same have been returned. W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010 -: 4 :- 9. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) The alleged detenue Anjali Lal is permitted to leave this Court along with the 2nd respondent as desired by her. 10. Both sides agree that they shall not indulge in any vindictive or vexatious action against each other. The learned Government Pleader submits that if either has such a genuine complaint, such party can complain to respondents 3 and 4 who shall take necessary and prompt action in that regard. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge