Kerala High Court
Radhakrishna Pillai V vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2021
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO.29 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI V., AGED 48 YEARS,
SON OF THE LATE KUTTAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL THEKKETHIL,
PANDANAD WEST P.O. CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 506.
2 PRASANNAKUMARI V.P., AGED 46 YEARS,
WIFE OF RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL THEKKETHIL,
PANDANAD WEST P.O. CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 506.
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN
SMT.V.DEEPA
SMT.ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD,
CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA 688 012.
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 122.
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 2 -
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR, MUNICIPALITY ROAD,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121.
5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION,
MUNICIPALITY ROAD, CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA 689 121.
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.
7 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.
8 VISHNU UNNI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
9 MANNIAMMA, WIFE OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
10 ARAMUGHAM, SON OF SANTHANAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
11 VAISHAK PILLAI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
12 VISHAK PILLAI, SON OF ARAMUGHAM,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
13 AMRITHA, WIFE OF VISHAK PILLAI,
RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVANAM, KATHALAKANDI,
SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 581.
14 SURESH KUMAR G, SON OF GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT THULASI BHAVANAM, WARD XII,
MOOCHIKADAVU MURI,
AGALI VILLAGE, SHOLAYUR,
PALAKKAD 678 581.
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 3 -
15 ABDUL GHAYU,
GRADE SUB INSPECTOR,
SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD 678 581.
R9 & R11 BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.STEPHY K. REGI
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 TO R7 & R15 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.K.B.RAMANAND.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 4 -
K. Vinod Chandran & Ziyad Rahman, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P(Crl.)No.29 of 2021-S
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2021
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioners were concerned with the fact that their daughter was missing. When the writ petition was filed, she had just attained majority; but it was alleged that even before attaining majority the minor child was taken away by the 8th respondent, whose parents and relatives are the respondents 9 to 14. The police were not able to trace out the girl and a Special Investigation Team was constituted under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengannur. Enquiries were made and we had made repeated orders in the above writ petition.
2. On 21.06.2021 when the matter was posted, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the girl child was traced out and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur. We directed the Magistrate, through the Registrar (District Judiciary), to forward a copy of the statement recorded. The statement recorded is produced along with the report of the Registrar (District Judiciary), which is marked as Court Exhibit C1. WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 5 - We make it clear that the statement was called for only for our perusal and it should not be disclosed to anybody else. It is directed that no certified copy shall be issued of the report or the statement to the parties in the writ petition or third parties.
3. On our direction, the subject was produced before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram since it was submitted that she is now residing at Thiruvananthapuram. We directed the Principal District Judge to interact with the subject and also provide Video Conferencing facility for her to interact with us. We further directed the parents of the subject to be present before that Principal District Court if they are desirous of interacting with their daughter.
4. Today, our directions in the order dated 21.06.2021 has been complied with. We interacted with the subject, who appeared before the Principal District Judge along with a Social Activist, who is also a Media personnel. We interacted with the subject, her parents and also the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The subject specifically told us that she is not in illegal custody of anyone and that she has married the 8 th respondent. The 8th respondent is as of now absconding, WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 6 - since he is charged for an offence of having taken a minor girl child from the custody of her parents. We interacted with the parents, who only prayed that they may be allowed to have constant contact with their daughter. They realize the futility in asking for the custody of the child, since now she has turned major.
5. The Principal District Judge also informs us that he interacted with the subject personally and she is definite in her desire to continue as of now with the person accompanying her, one Sheeba S.M., aged 34 years, W/o.Saran, House No.81-A, Kesari Lane, Poojappura, awaiting the return of her husband/8th respondent. She promises that she would have contact with her parents and her parents agreed to purchase a Mobile Phone for her so as to keep in constant touch.
6. After hearing was concluded, the Principal District Judge also forwarded a report, which is marked as Court Exhibit C2. We make it clear that certified copy of this document also shall not be issued to the parties in the writ petition or third parties.
7. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that no writ of habeas corpus be issued since the missing girl has been produced before us through Video Conferencing in the WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 7 - presence of the Principal District Judge. She was also produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur, who recorded her statement. Before the Magistrate and to the Principal District Judge as also to us she unequivocally expressed her desire to continue with the 8th respondent, on whose instructions she is residing along with the Social Activist. The subject, the alleged detenue, also has turned 18 years of age. We make it clear that we have not made any observation about the criminal law set in motion against the 8th respondent and this order or the observations in it, do not at all regulate the criminal proceedings. We, hence, close the above writ petition reiterating that no copies of the Court Exhibits marked as C-1 and C-2 shall be issued to any of the parties or third parties.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE Vku/-
WP(Crl).No.29 of 2021 - 8 -
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.)NO.29/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE FIR NO.1731 OF 2020 LODGED WITH 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE DETENUE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY. COURT EXHIBITS:-
COURT EXHIBIT C1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR DATED 04/06/2021 WITH REPORT OF REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY).
COURT EXHIBIT C2 REPORT SUBMITTED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24/06/2021.