Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Deepthi Vs. S.P.Malappuram

Deepthi vs S.P.Malappuram

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 04, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1166971

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepthi

Respondent

S.P.Malappuram

Excerpt

.....him at liberty.2. this court, by order dated 14/10/2014, when admitted the above writ petition, while issuing notice to the 5th and 6th respondents, they were directed to w.p. (crl.). no. 419 of 2014 -:2. :- produce the detenue before this court on 17/10/2014. subsequently, by order dated 17/10/2014, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned government pleader, the time fixed for the appearance of the detenue has been extended and posted the matter to this date. thus, when the matter is taken up today, the petitioner and the detenue appeared before us.3. we have interacted with the petitioner and the detenue and we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned government pleader.4. when the matter is taken up in the morning session, we directed both the petitioner as well as the detenue to sit together and to talk each other so as to arrive into an amicable settlement and thus, the case was adjourned. thereafter, when the matter is taken up again for consideration, both the petitioner as well as the detenue, the husband of the petitioner, submitted before us that they have settled the dispute through their discussions and they have decided to w.p. (crl.). no. 419 of 2014 -:3. :- live together and it is further submitted that the petitioner is agreed to go along with the detenue, her husband, to his house so as to live a peaceful family life. the above submissions of both the petitioner as well as her husband detenue are recorded. in view of the above developments, after the filing of the writ petition, we are of the view that no further orders are necessary. in the result, this writ petition is closed. sd/- (v.k. mohanan, judge) sd/- (k. harilal, judge) nan/ //true copy// p.s. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER201413TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(Crl.).No. 419 of 2014 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- DEEPTHI, D/O.APPUKUTTAN, PERUMKULANGARA HOUSE, SRAMBIKALLU, PULLANGODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOKOTTUMAPDAM, MALAPPURAM-679 329.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERI, ERNAKULAM-682 011. (RESPONDENTS1TO4REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.) 5. RAMAN, NELLIKODAN HOUSE, 5TH MILE, AMARAMBALAM, MALAPURAM DISTRICT-679 329. ........2 -2- 6. ANIL, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THOTTITHODIKA HOUSE, UPVALLI, POOKOTTUMPADAM-679 329. R1-R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.S ABDUL KAREEM R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0411-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(Crl.).No. 419 of 2014 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------- EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED308/2014. EXT.P1(A). TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED218/2014 EXT.P1(B). TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED3008/2014. EXT.P1(C). TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED308/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ NIL //true copy// P.S. to Judge V.K. MOHANAN & K. HARILAL, JJ.

------------------------------------------------------ W.P. (Crl.). No. 419 of 2014-S ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2014 JUDGMENT

Mohanan, J.

The petitioner, who is the wife of one Girish Babu alleging that her husband is missing from 21/8/2014, preferred this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Girish Babu, S/o. Raman, Nellikodan House, before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. This Court, by order dated 14/10/2014, when admitted the above writ petition, while issuing notice to the 5th and 6th respondents, they were directed to W.P. (Crl.). No. 419 of 2014 -:

2. :- produce the detenue before this Court on 17/10/2014. Subsequently, by order dated 17/10/2014, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the time fixed for the appearance of the detenue has been extended and posted the matter to this date. Thus, when the matter is taken up today, the petitioner and the detenue appeared before us.

3. We have interacted with the petitioner and the detenue and we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. When the matter is taken up in the morning session, we directed both the petitioner as well as the detenue to sit together and to talk each other so as to arrive into an amicable settlement and thus, the case was adjourned. Thereafter, when the matter is taken up again for consideration, both the petitioner as well as the detenue, the husband of the petitioner, submitted before us that they have settled the dispute through their discussions and they have decided to W.P. (Crl.). No. 419 of 2014 -:

3. :- live together and it is further submitted that the petitioner is agreed to go along with the detenue, her husband, to his house so as to live a peaceful family life. The above submissions of both the petitioner as well as her husband detenue are recorded. In view of the above developments, after the filing of the writ petition, we are of the view that no further orders are necessary. In the result, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- (V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial