IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 341 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. DIBU DAS, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.DEVADAS, MANIYANTHARA HOUSE, POOVATHUR P.O.,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680508 2. DEVADAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.K.KUTTY, MANIYANTHARA HOUSE, POOVATHUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680508 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.M.C.SANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKADA POLICE STATION,VADAKKEKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 685051. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOCHI ERNAKULAM - 682031 3. SHEEBA, W/O.SUDHAKARAN, PUNNAYURKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 685051 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU R1&2 ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R3 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.181/2010 DTD.9.6.2010 OF THE PUNNAYURKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE THREE PRINTS OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE IST PETITIOENR AND DRISYA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.G/40/2011 DTD.5.7.2011 THROUGH LAWYER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD.11.7.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING ENGLISH ALPHABET A ND EQUIVALENT MALAYALAM WORDS. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.12.7.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CSS/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WP(Crl.) No.341 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J The first petitioner is the son of the second petitioner. He came to this Court saying that the third respondent who is the mother-in-law of the first petitioner has illegally detained his wife. The alleged detenue is before us with her mother. We do not find any ground to notice that she is under illegal detention. The learned counsel for the mother says that the girl is staying in a hostel at Ernakulam and is undergoing some course and during week-ends she will go to her mother. It appears that there is some difference of opinion between the couple. 2. The learned counsel for the mother says that at an earlier point of time, the first petitioner and the girl had sought efforts and assistance of counselling through a Psychiatrist in the Amla Hospital, Thrissur and that some advice was given. We are surprised to see that the writ WP(CRL.) No.341 of 2011 2 petitioner has not disclosed that fact. The learned counsel for the petitioners asked the first petitioner about that incident in Court, before us. He candidly admitted of such counselling procedure in the Amla Hospital, Thrissur. We are clear in our mind that all those relevant facts of such situation relating to a matrimonial home were not disclosed, exceptionally in discretionary jurisdiction for consideration of a case for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus. 3. The girl also takes strong objections to the production of Ext.P5 which is the print out of the SMS between the couple. We have not considered that item of evidence and we reject that from the records since that exhibit cannot be used for any purpose in this case, having regard to the provisions in Section 122 of the Evidence Act because this is not a matrimonial dispute. We, however, hasten to add that relevance of such material wherever it is admissible in terms of Section 122 of the Evidence Act has not been commented upon in this judgment. 4. We are clear in our mind that the petitioner has not WP(CRL.) No.341 of 2011 3 come to this Court disclosing all relevant facts and hence this writ petition has to be treated only as an abuse of judicial process. We refuse jurisdiction. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to other proceedings. No costs. sd/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE