IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 469 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOFIA,AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.RAHEEMA BEEVI, VELAMPARAMBIL,ERUVA MURIYIL,KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLIC,OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KAYAMKULAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION- 5. RAJESH,PATTATHIL VEEDU,EDAYANAMBALAM, PRAYAR,OACHIRA,KOLLAM. 6. SYAM,PATTATHIL VEEDU,EDAYANAMBALAM, PRAYAR,OACHIRA,KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.PADMARAJ R6 BTY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPCR.469/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.10.2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11.10.2011 IN CRIMENO.1173/2011. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(Crl.).No.469 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.Read earlier orders. 2.We place on record our appreciation for the involvement of Smt.C.N.Rajam, Sub Inspector of Police of the Women Police Station, Ernakulam, who has interacted with the alleged detenue while housed in Santhinikethan. 3.We have the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Maranelloor. We would only record that there are a couple of criminal cases and a security proceedings as against the 6th respondent with whom the alleged detenue was found. We are also told that there are certain criminal proceedings even in relation to the events leading to and following the alleged WPCR.469/11 2 detenue being in the company of the 6th respondent. We do not express anything touching the merits of this matter. The nature of offences alleged against the 6th respondent includes use of weapons which normally are not carried. This prompted us to require the involvement of a woman police officer to tell the alleged detenue about what has surfaced as seen in the statement. 4.As of now, we have again heard the alleged detenue in person. We interacted with her. We see that she is well-oriented in so far as she says that she would go for Nursing, after her +2 course. She is not matured emotionally to take any decision affecting her life in long term. She does not have the ability to decide regarding her marriage with the 6th respondent when it is revealed that there is a couple of criminal cases against him. She says that she would go with her mother. 5.We interacted with the mother. She says that she will take her daughter with care and this incident will not be projected WPCR.469/11 3 against the daughter for any type of harassment. It is also said that though the alleged detenue's father is much disturbed now, he would also take care of her. 6.With the aforesaid, we direct the police to provide adequate protection to the alleged detenue, as may be found necessary, to go back home and also ensure that such care and protection is given if and when required by them. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The Court Officer will receive the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Maranelloor and incorporate it in the file. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.25/11.