IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 323 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, K.34-A,KAILAS NAGAR, "PRASANHI". P.O.PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 2. M.CHANDRALEKHA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.T.K.NARAYANAN, -DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETEND BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 3. MR.STANLEY STEPHEN, DARPANA ACADEMY, USMANPURA, AHMADABAD, PIN:380013,GUJARAT DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. DR.K.S.SUNIL, S/O.K.CHANDRASENAN, KAKKANATTU HOME, NEAR VIDYODAYA NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.B.NO.28, GOODALLOOR DIST., TAMILNADU. ADDL.5. MRS.VEENA SUNIL, W/O.DR.S.S.SUNIL, KAKKANATTU HOME, NEAR VIDYODAYA NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.B.NO.28, GOODALLOOR DIST., TAMILNADU. (Addl.R4 and R5 are impleaded as per order dt.11.08.2010 in I.A.No.11291/2010) SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioners, the maternal grandparents of a young girl Keerthana.S, aged 19 years (date of birth - 23.12.1990) have come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce the said Keerthana (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue'). According to the petitioners, the alleged detenue is under the illegal confinement and detention of the 3rd respondent. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the alleged detenue. The petitioners came to this Court with the grievance that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not taking any action to secure the release of the alleged detenue from the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent. She was being illegally detained and confined at Ahmadabad, Gujarat, complained the petitioners. 2. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not initially impleaded in this petition. The matter came up for hearing and after discussions at the Bar, the petitioners impleaded respondent Nos.4 and 5 also. This petition was filed on 10.08.2010. The same was admitted later on 11.08.2010. Notice was ordered to W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 2 the respondents. We directed respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the alleged detenue is produced before us. 3. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by this Court resting with the order dated 20.08.2010. 4. The alleged detenue was traced at Ahmadabad by the police and brought to Kerala. She was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court on 20.08.2010. The learned C.J.M in charge directed that the alleged detenue be accommodated at Mahila Mandiram, Poojappura, Trivandrum, and directed Superintendent of that institution to ensure that the alleged detenue is produced before this Court on 30.08.2010. 5. Today when the case is called, the petitioners are present. They are represented by their counsel. The 3rd respondent has appeared before Court. He is represented by his counsel. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also appeared before Court. They are not represented by any counsel. The alleged detenue has been produced before Court from the Mahila Mandiram, Trivandrum, where she was accommodated from 21.08.2010 to this date as per the directions of the C.J.M in charge, Trivandrum. W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 3 6. As the alleged detenue comes not from the custody of her parents and maternal grandparents - the petitioners, and she was allegedly traced in the custody of the 3rd respondent, we permitted the petitioners as also respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the younger sister of the alleged detenue to have interactions with her in the Chamber. 7. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the petitioners. Subsequently we interacted with respondent Nos.4 and 5. Still later we interacted with the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also involved in the interactions. 8. The alleged detenue states before us that she had gone to Ahmadabad along with the 3rd respondent. She wanted to continue her studies in Music there at Darppana Academy. She had secured some voluntary engagement (employment) there. She was residing along with the 3rd respondent in an apartment taken on hire by him. She was traced by the police and was brought to Kerala and as per the directions of this Court, the learned C.J.M had directed that she be accommodated at Mahila Mandiram. There she was given opportunity to interact with her W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 4 grandparents and parents. The alleged detenue was also given counselling at Mahila Mandiram by a counsellor by name Dr.Seema Bhaskar. 9. In the course of our interactions with the alleged detenue, the alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to continue to reside with the 3rd respondent and that she would now choose to go along with her parents. She admitted that she was residing along with the 3rd respondent in an apartment at Ahmadabad. She hastened to state before us that there was no improper relationship between her and the 3rd respondent. 10. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, the parents of the alleged detenue, stated before us that they are now willing to take the alleged detenue with them. The alleged detenue wants to continue the counselling with Dr.Seema Bhaskar and respondent Nos.4 and 5 agree that the needful shall be done to help the alleged detenue to get continued counselling support from the said Counsellor Dr.Seema Bhaskar. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had undertaken before us to do everything that is necessary to give proper support, guidance and patronage to the alleged detenue. 11. The petitioners, the maternal grandparents of the alleged detenue, state before us that they are perfectly happy W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 5 with the arrangement of the alleged detenue going along with respondent Nos.4 and 5 and that that is what they always wanted to happen. It is true that the petitioners initially had a grievance that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were trusting the 3rd respondent unnecessarily and unreasonably and were giving needless and undeserved opportunity for the 3rd respondent to interact with the alleged detenue. They are happy if respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall look after all her necessities and genuine interests. 12. The 3rd respondent stated before us that he had taken the alleged detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 at Gudallur. According to him this was done by him admittedly without the consent of respondent Nos.4 and 5. But he would assert that he did so only in the interest of the alleged detenue. He is a Music Therapist and according to him the alleged detenue requires Music Therapy and he had been giving such therapy to the alleged detenue. According to the 3rd respondent it was as requested by the 4th respondent, the father of the alleged detenue, that he started Music Therapy for the alleged detenue. However, he accepts that he had taken the alleged detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 without informing respondent Nos.4 and 5. This he had done only at the request of the alleged detenue, submits the 3rd respondent. He W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 6 further admits that he had taken her to Ahmadabad. He had got her admitted to the Darpana Academy. He had helped her to secure a voluntary engagement (employment) there. She was being accommodated along with him in an apartment taken on hire by him. He would hasten to admit that he had no improper relationship with the alleged detenue. The 3rd respondent asserts that the alleged detenue had while at Ahmadabad joined B.A. Psychology Course conducted by the I.G.N.O.U - a distance education course. 13. In response to our queries, the 3rd respondent states that if respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not want him to have any relationship with the alleged detenue, he does not want to continue any relationship with the alleged detenue. He is perfectly happy if respondent Nos.4 and 5 agree and undertake to take care of their daughter, the alleged detenue. He undertakes before Court that he shall not hereafter have any relationship with the alleged detenue and that he shall not interfere in the management of the affairs of the alleged detenue by her parents, respondent Nos.4 and 5. 14. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that though no crime has been registered regarding the alleged disappearance of the alleged W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 7 detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the police, as directed by this Court, had made endeavour to trace the alleged detenue and she was ultimately traced in the company of the 3rd respondent at Ahmadabad. According to the police they were living together and the learned Government Pleader points out that the police have information that the relationship was not proper or fair. The 3rd respondent, a married person who has strained relationship with his wife, had taken the alleged detenue along with him and was having an objectionable live in relationship with her at Ahmadabad. 15. Be that as it may, we feel that it is unnecessary for us to delve deeper into the various controversies raised. We take note of the fact that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as also the alleged detenue agree that the alleged detenue shall go along with respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of the stand of the petitioners that they are happy if the alleged detenue leaves the Court along with respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of the undertaking given by the 3rd respondent before us in person in the presence of his counsel that he shall not in any way interfere with the relationship between the alleged detenue and respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of, record and accept his undertaking that he shall not in any way contact the alleged W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 8 detenue or have any relationship with her hereafter. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this Writ Petition can now be disposed of with appropriate directions. 16. In the result: i) This Writ Petition is allowed; ii) We permit the alleged detenue to go from Court along with her parents, ie. respondent Nos.4 and 5 as desired by her; iii) We record the undertaking of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they shall take proper care of the alleged detenue and shall afford her support of counselling by Dr.Seema Bhaskar, who has been counselling her after she was admitted to the Mahila Mandiram; iv) We take note of, record and accept the undertaking of the 3rd respondent that he shall not in any way interfere with the continued residence of the alleged detenue with respondent Nos.4 and 5 and that he shall not in any way contact the alleged detenue hereafter; v) We record the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that respondent Nos.4 and 5 or the petitioners or the alleged detenue can make appropriate complaint before respondent Nos.1 and 2 or before any other police officer if the 3rd respondent violates the above undertaking and that the police W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 9 shall do the needful if there be any improper and culpable conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent; vi) We record that the alleged detenue has accordingly left the Court along with her parents - respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hand over copes of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 10 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. Petitioners are present. They are grandparents of the W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 11 alleged detenue. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police submits that the alleged detenue has already been traced at Ahmadabad in Gujarat and she is being brought to Kerala. The police party shall start with the alleged detenue only today. Before the closing of Courts, it is impossible hence to cause production of the alleged detenue before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the alleged detenue may be permitted to be produced before this Court and some interim arrangements may be made for the custody of the alleged detenue till she is produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent has no authority to keep the alleged detenue with him. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, the parents of the alleged detenue, have also appeared before this Court today. They are not represented by any counsel. We have interacted with respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 submits before us that he has also not given any authority for the 3rd respondent to keep his daughter, the alleged detenue, in his custody. The learned Government Pleader submits that no crime having been registered, appropriate directions may be issued to the police as to what the police should do with the alleged detenue when she is brought to Kerala at a time when this Court is not sitting. W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 12 2. A telegram is received by the Registrar from the 3rd respondent, in which he has raised certain contentions. 3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, we direct that this case be called before this Court again on 30.08.2010, ie. the next date of sitting. In the meantime, it is directed that the alleged detenue shall be produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as soon as the alleged detenue reaches Trivandrum. The petitioners as also respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall be informed of the date and time of production of the alleged detenue before the learned C.J.M by respondent No.2. The learned C.J.M shall hear all the parties including the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent (if he appears), and take an appropriate decision regarding accommodation/residence of the alleged detenue from the date of production till 30.08.2010. The learned C.J.M shall ensure that the alleged detenue appears before this Court on 30.08.2010, whatever be the interim arrangements regarding the accommodation of the alleged detenue till then. 4. Call on 30.08.2010. 5. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 13 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/