KRISHNAN Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of a person named 'Kripesh' aged 29 years, is the petitioner herein. The above writ petition is filed by raising an allegation that the petitioner's son (herein after referred to as the alleged detenue) is under illegal confinement of respondents 5 to 7. It is stated that on 06 -11 -2015 the alleged detenue had gone out from his house stating that he is going to Palakkad, but thereafter he has not returned to home. On 08 -11 -2015 the petitioner came to know that the 5th respondent is also missing along with the alleged detenue, along with her younger daughter aged 6 months. According to the petitioner the alleged detenue was enticed and taken away forcibly by respondents 5 to 7 under compulsion, duress and threat, with an intention to force him to marry the 5th respondent against his free will and wish. It is mentioned that, based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had registered a case as Crime No.765/2015 under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Alleging that no effective steps are being taken to trace out the alleged detenue and also alleging that the respondents 5 to 7 are keeping the alleged detenue under illegal confinement against his free will, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the alleged detenue and to set him at liberty.

(2.) Based on notice issued from this court and based on the directions issued to the 1st respondent, the alleged detenue is produced before us on today. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that, the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent were traced out from Velloor in Tamil Nadu State along with the child of the 5th respondent, on 29 -11 -2015. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent along with the child was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Hosdurg on 30 -11 -2015 and the learned Magistrate had set the 5th respondent freed to go to her house, and the alleged detenue was directed to be produced before this court.

(3.) When we interacted with the alleged detenue, he conceded that he was roaming at different places in Tamil Nadu, along with the 5th respondent and her child, from 06 -11 -2015 onwards. According to him he went along with the 5th respondent voluntarily. He had refuted the allegation that he is under illegal detention. He expressed willingness to go along with the petitioner.