IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 67 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, CHENGALAM HOUSE, KOYAS LANE, THERUVATH, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ABBAS, KAZI LANE, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD. 2. JAMEELA, W/O.ABBAS, KAZI LANE, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD. 3. ASHIKA, D/O.ABBAS, DO. DO. 4. ABINASH, S/O.ABBAS, DO. DO. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD. R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WP(CrL.)No.67/2010 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: P1: COPY OF THE RECORDED TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION RECORDED IN THE C.D. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(Crl.)No.67 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner, a married man with three children, states that the alleged detenu, a 20 year old girl is deeply in love with him and wants to marry him and that Nikah was fixed on 6.2.2010. He says that the parents of the alleged detenu have taken her away and are hopping place to place and he has with him Ext.P1 recorded telephonic version in which the alleged detenu allegedly says that she is being harassed. We hasten to add that we have not heard the contents of Ext.P1. However, we are clear in our mind that without moving the police; without making any complaint in that regard and without even taking recourse to the court of the competent Judicial WPCR67/10 -: 2 :- Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate in terms of Section 97 Cr.P.C. and other appropriate provisions of criminal law, the interference of writ court by the issuance of a habeas corpus is not called for, as of now, in this case. We record the submission on behalf of the police that the alleged detenu and her parents are, as of now not traced. With this, we close this writ petition preserving the liberty of the petitioner to bring any act which constitutes an offence to the notice of the police or to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate for relief under Section 97 Cr.P.C. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/0103