IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 475 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MUHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY P.V., AYISHAD HOUSE, CHITAPILEPOIL P.O., PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.J. MICHAEL, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, P.O. SANKARANPADY, BANDADUKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 125. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEDAKOM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 123. R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T. RAMAPRASAD UNNI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRL.).NO.475/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF FIRST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF FIRST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE SHILIN. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE REVEALED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER OF TALIPARAMBA, DATED 20.5.2011. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF MESSAGE SENT BY SHILIN TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH E.MAIL DATED 29.5.2011. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF MESSAGE SENT BY SHILIN TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH E.MAIL DATED 29.5.2011. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF MESSAGE SENT BY SHILIN TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH E.MAIL DATED 29.5.2011. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF MESSAGE SENT BY SHILIN TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH E.MAIL DATED 29.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.). No.475 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J . We read the writ petition. The petitioner is present. We read the statement recorded by the police from the alleged detenue following the order issued. We are satisfied that the report is taken under fair procedure and the alleged detenue is well oriented and she had explicitly and clearly stated that she does not want to continue any relationship with the petitioner. We also gave the statement to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for him to read. She has stated that she has recalled the notice for intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioner candidly admits that his parents had interacted with the parents of the alleged detenue. We think, on facts, that this is not a fit case where a writ of habeas corpus calls for. 2. Learned Government Pleader will ensure that the statement of the alleged detenue as recorded by the police officer and the report of the police officer available with the learned Government Pleader following the W.P.(Crl) 475/11 2 earlier order is filed and incorporated in this file, at the earliest. Writ petition is closed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc W.P.(Crl) 475/11 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010