Kerala High Court
Anees Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2017
Bench: V.Chitambaresh, Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/27TH ASWINA, 1939
WP(Crl.).No. 313 of 2017 (S)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------
ANEES HAMEED,
S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 25 YEARS,
MARKETING EXECUTIVE & RESEARCH ANALYST,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2288, SECTOR 12,
SONIPAT, HARYANA,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT HASEENAS, CHUDALA,
CHITHAPPILEPOYIL P.O., PARIYARAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, 670502.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR-670002.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT 670502.`
6. M. RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
MELEDATH HOUSE,,CHERUTHAZHAM CENTRE,
MANDUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, 670501.
7. GEETHA RAJAN, W/O. RAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
MELEDATH HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM CENTRE,
MANDUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, 670501.
8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670141.
WPCR313/17
- 2 -
ADDL.RESPONDENTS:
9. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI.
10. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HILL PALACE CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA.
(ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 'SUO MOTU' IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 28.9.2017.)
R1 TO R5 & R8 TO R10
BY SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER WITH DGP.
R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI
ADV. SRI.R.SUDHEER
ADV. SRI.P.SAJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-10-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.5684/2017, THE COURT ON 19-10-2017
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 313 of 2017 (S)
-----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF SSLC EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DATED 8.5.2009 IN
RESPECT OF SRUTHI MELEDATH ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC
EXAMINATIONS KERALA.
EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF CONVERSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.5.2017 ISSUED BY
ALI AHMAD QASMI OF MADRASA ALIA ARBIA OF FATEHPURI, DELHI-6.
EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.5.2017
ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRATION OF MUSLIM MARRIAGE MASJID
FATEHPURI, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI-6.
EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.329 OF 2017 OF PARIYARM MEDICAL
COLLEGE POLICE STATION.
EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7.6.2017 IN WP(CRL) NO. 206 OF
2017 OF THIS COURT.
EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.6.2017 IN WP(CRL) NO.1794 OF 2017
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI.
EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 21.5.2017 FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
PAYYANNUR ON 21.6.2017.
EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE DETENUE RECORDED BY THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR ON 21.6.2017 AT 10-15AM
IN CRIME NO.329 OF 2017 OF PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE
STATION.
EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.M.P.NO.4727 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT FILED AS
C.M.P.NO.4728 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P11-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.6.2017 IN C.M.P.NO.4728 OF 2017
ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P12-TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 29.6.2017 FILED BY THE DY.S.P,
TALIPARAMBA, IN C.M.P. NO.4728 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P13-TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 11.7.2017 FILED BY THE DY.S.P,
TALIPARAMBA, IN C.M.P. NO.4728 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P14-TRUE COPY OF THE INTERI ORDER DT.18-8-2017 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5684
OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
----------------------
-TRUE COPY-
PS TO JUDGE
"CR"
V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(Crl). No.313 of 2017,
I.A.Nos.15973, 15979 & 15980 of 2017
and
Crl.M.C.No.5684 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
Chitambaresh, J.
"Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope."
said Maya Angelou, the American poet, memoirist and civil right activist.
2. Sruthi Meledath ('Sruthi' for short) fell in love with her classmate Anees Hameed ('Anees' for short) while studying for the B.Sc.(Physics) course in the Pilathara Co- operative Arts & Science College. Sruthi pursued her M.Sc. WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 2 :- (Physics) course while Anees completed certificate course in NDT and Piping Design and Engineering and has joined for M.B.A.(Marketing) course through distance education. Sruthi expressed her desire to marry Anees which was vehemently opposed by her parents on the ground that both belong to different religious communities - Hindu and Muslim. Sruthi quietly left her parental home on 16.05.2017 along with Anees to New Delhi and it is stated that a mock marriage was conducted thereat after she got converted to Islam. The couple had a live-in-relationship for about a month - initially at New Delhi and later at Sonepat in Haryana - during which time Anees was working in a private establishment.
3. It appears that the father of Sruthi preferred a complaint alleging that his daughter is missing whereupon Crime No.329/2017 was registered on the file of the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station. The parents of Sruthi followed it up by W.P.(Crl.)No.206/2017 on the file of WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 3 :- this Court which was disposed of observing that a 'proper investigation' is under progress. The police later took the couple into custody on 20.06.2017 from their residence at Sonepat and brought them to the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station via Mangalore by flight. Anees and Sruthi were produced separately before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur on 21.06.2017 obviously to screen one from the other while recording their statements. Sruthi was handed over to her parents who took her to a Yoga Kendra at Udayamperoor in Ernakulam wherein she was lodged as an inmate along with other hapless girls who exceeded forty in number. Anees was totally in the dark about the whereabouts of Sruthi and therefore preferred C.M.P.No.4727/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. The Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate by order dated 27.06.2017 issued a search warrant under Section 97 Cr.P.C. to trace out Sruthi WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 4 :- who was kept concealed by her parents. Anees who was desperate also filed W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 on the file of this Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing Sruthi to be freed from the illegal detention.
4. The parents of Sruthi however filed Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 on the file of this Court to quash the search warrant in C.M.P.No.4728/2017 issued by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. They on their own volition produced Sruthi in this Court on 18.08.2017 in the midst of hearing of Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and the learned single Judge did interact with her. It is a fact that a frightened Sruthi at that point of time chose to remain with her parents and did not disclose anything about her lodging at the Yoga Kendra or the torture underwent by her. Sruthi was put back in the Yoga Kendra by her parents not only to insulate her from Anees but also to persuade her to snap the relationship and remain as a Hindu forever. But Sruthi convincingly insisted on WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 5 :- joining Anees when she was produced on 22.08.2017 in the midst of hearing of W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 when the earlier Division Bench passed the following order:
"5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 submits that in Crl.M.C. No. 5684/2017, which was filed by respondents 6 and 7, the detenue was produced before the learned single Judge of this Court and she had given a statement that she would like to go with her parents.
6. We interacted with the detenue.
According to her, though she had given such a statement before the learned single Judge of this Court, it was under severe pressure. Her grandfather expired only four days back and before the said date, she was being detained for about two months at her residence. There was force from the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well to go along with her parents. According to her, she would like to conduct a valid marriage with the petitioner and she does not want to change her religion."
5. Sruthi again appeared before us in Court on WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 6 :- 28.09.2017 and narrated the torture inflicted on her during her stay at the Yoga Kendra from 22.06.2017 till she was produced in this Court on 22.08.2017. She stated that there were similar other girls at the Yoga Kendra who were all woken up daily at 4 a.m. in the morning and subjected to a regimental routine throughout the day. The girls were forced to do cooking and cleaning apart from other daily chores and were also compelled to do yoga and hear lecture classes (Satsanga) during the rest of the day. Sruthi wept in open court and stated that the inmates were slapped on their cheeks and kicked on their abdomen if they disobeyed the commands in the Yoga Kendra. Sruthi added that there were instances when a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth to silence her when she wailed disclosing her wish to go with Anees much to their chagrin. The picture painted by Sruthi is that persons at the helm of affairs at the Yoga Kendra were running the institution in order to coerce the inmates to come WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 7 :- back to their original religion - Hindu.
6. We then suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of Police, Kochi and the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura as additional respondents in W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 and directed the registration of a First Information Report. The Commissioner of Police submitted that Crime No.1557/2017 has been registered against the President of the Yoga Kendra and eight others assisting him. The crime has been registered under Sections 323, 342 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Udayamperoor Police Station, Kochi City. This is in addition to Crime No.1536/2017 registered in the Police Station against the same accused on the complaint of another inmate who had also horrid tales of suffering to narrate. The parents of Sruthi brought to our notice about the pendency of Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 filed by them and her stand before the learned single Judge on 18.08.2017. We therefore called for WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 8 :- Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and tagged it with the W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 and further directed the parties to be present in Court for final hearing on 10.10.2017.
7. A preliminary objection was raised by the parents of Sruthi contending inter alia that this Court is denuded of its jurisdiction to entertain W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 when Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 is also pending. But W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed on 10.08.2017 whereas Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed later on 14.08.2017. W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 is filed by Anees whereas Crl.M.C. No.5684/2017 is filed by the parents of Sruthi though both relate to the illegal detention or confinement. There is no impediment in law to club the cases for disposal on merits especially when the cardinal issue in both pertains to the alleged illegal confinement of Sruthi. It is trite law that all matters which can be heard and decided by a single Judge can WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 9 :- as well be heard and decided by a Division Bench but not vice-versa [See R.Rathinam v. State (2000) 2 SCC 391]. This is so since there is no statutory restriction passed by the Legislature prohibiting the Division Bench from exercising the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No exception can be taken to the course adopted by us in calling for Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 from the Single Bench and tagging it with W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 for final hearing and disposal by a common judgment.
8. Moreover such technical objections shall not be countenanced when the individual liberty of a citizen is at stake in considering the issue of a writ of habeas corpus which is of highest constitutional importance. Any technical plea has no room in a writ of habeas corpus and we are fortified in this view by Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala [(2011) 10 SCC 781] wherein it is held as follows:
"15. In this connection, if we may say so, WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 10 :- the writ of habeas corpus is the oldest writ evolved by the Common Law of England to protect the individual liberty against its invasion in the hands of the executive or may be also at the instance of private persons. This principle of habeas corpus has been incorporated in our constitutional law and we are of the opinion that in a democratic republic like India where Judges function under a written Constitution and which has a chapter on Fundamental Rights, to protect individual liberty the judges owe a duty to safeguard the liberty not only of the citizens but also of all persons within the territory of India. The most effective way of doing the same is by way of exercise of power by the court by issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
16. This facet of the writ of habeas corpus makes it a writ of the highest constitutional importance being a remedy available to the lowliest citizen against the most powerful authority [See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn, Vol.11, para 1454]. That is why it has been WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 11 :- said that the writ of habeas corpus is the key that unlocks the door to freedom [See The Common Law in India, 1960 by M.C.Setalvad, p.38." (emphasis supplied) This Court should be overzealous to protect the individual liberty of even the lowliest citizen of the country and unlock the door to freedom if there is a faintest doubt that she is unlawfully confined or illegally detained.
9. We put it to Sruthi in open court on 10.10.2017 as to why she expressed her desire to go with her parents during the preliminary hearing in Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and the shift in her stand now in W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017. Sruthi stated that she was taken from the Yoga Kendra to Kannur on 17.8.2017 when her grandfather died and brought to Ernakulam on the morning of 18.8.2017 itself. Sruthi further stated that she was physically and mentally exhausted by the time she was brought to Court on the same day for the WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 12 :- hearing in Crl.M.C. No. 5684/2017. Sruthi added that the notice said to be published by the Popular Front of India that she would be deported to Syria or Yemen for terrorist activities was a ploy by the Yoga Kendra to instill fear in her. It was only during the hearing of W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 that she mustered courage to divulge the true facts about her relationship with Anees which have also been recorded in the interim order on 22.8.2017.
10. Several petitions have been filed by strangers to get themselves impleaded in W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 contending that this is a case of 'Love Jihad' and that this Court should take a serious view of the issue. I.A.No.15973/2017 has been filed by one Athira who was allegedly an inmate of the Yoga Kendra and wanted to vividly describe the activities conducted therein as part of 'Ghar Wapsi'. I.A.No.15979/2017 has been filed by 'Christian Helpline' which is said to be an organization set up to protect Christian girls who are being WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 13 :- lured to Islam through the 'Love Jihad'. I.A.No.15980/2017 has been filed by 'Vijnanabharathi Educational and Charitable Society' which runs the Yoga Kendra denying the allegation of torture made by Sruthi and another inmate. The only question that arises for adjudication in a writ of habeas corpus is as to whether the personal liberty of the detenue is cribbed and cabined and is to be set free. The impleading petitioners are free to depose before the police who have already launched their investigation and the writ court is not the venue for ventilating their grievances. We therefore dismiss all the petitions afore-mentioned for impleading without prejudice to the right of the petitioners therein to take part in the criminal investigation if they so chose.
11. We are appalled to notice the recent trend in this State to sensationalize every case of inter-religious marriage as either 'Love Jihad' or 'Ghar Wapsi' even if there was platonic love between the spouses before. The case on hand is also WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 14 :- projected as 'Love Jihad' by the parents of Sruthi whereas Anees alleges a case of 'Ghar Wapsi' in a bid to coerce her to come back to the Hindu religion. Any centre for forcible conversion or re-conversion has to be busted by the police whether it be Hindu, Muslim or Christian lest it offends the constitutional right. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to freely profess, practise and propagate any religion which cannot be trampled upon by subversive forces or religious outfits. We are however convinced that Sruthi has been in love with Anees for long which has blossomed into a permanent relationship leading to a marital tie. Sruthi with a 'Sindoor' on her forehead asserted that she would remain as a Hindu till death and that Anees would remain as a Muslim and that their marriage has now been registered too. The certificate of marriage dated 9.10.2017 issued by the Marriage Officer, Taliparamba under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 bears ample testimony to her WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 15 :- status as a legally wedded wife. We applaud the extra- ordinary courage shown by Sruthi to live up to her conviction and decry the attempt of her parents to deflect the course of justice by misleading litigations. Sruthi is a Post-graduate and matured and has discovered her life-partner in Anees and she cannot be detained against her wishes either at her parental home or in the Yoga Kendra. Sruthi is ordered to be set at liberty and it is for the couple to decide their future course of action without any interference from her parents or from any corner whatsoever which the police shall ensure.
12. This judgment will not be complete without quoting from Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2006) 5 SCC 475] wherein it is observed as follows:
"17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed, the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 16 :- in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage."
We caution that every case of inter-religious marriage shall WP(Crl).313/17 & CrlMC.5684/17 -: 17 :- not be portrayed on a religious canvass and create fissures in the communal harmony otherwise existing in the God's Own Country - Kerala.
W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 is allowed and Crl.M.C. No.5684/2017 is dismissed. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE Sha/121017