Subinsha Vs. District Superintendent of Police and ors.

Subinsha vs District Superintendent of Police and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 27, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907538

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907538
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: R. Basant; M.L. Joseph Francis, Jj.
Decided On: Oct 27, 2010
Case Number: WP(Crl.).No. 398 of 2010
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

[N.K. PATIL; H.S.KEMPANNA, JJ.] This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 05/05/2005 passed in MVC No. 135/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn), MACT, Maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement oil compensation.

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subinsha

Advocate SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, Adv.

Respondent

District Superintendent of Police and ors.

Advocate SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, Adv.

Excerpt

[n.k. patil; h.s.kempanna, jj.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act against the judgment and award dated: 05/05/2005 passed in mvc no. 135/2001 on the file of the civil judge(sr.dn), mact, maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement oil compensation......with opportunity to no one to interact with her. the alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. during the pre-lunch session she was permitted to remain in the chamber. after the lunch recess we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of respondents 3 and 4. subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned government pleader were present. 4. in our interactions with the alleged detenue, she stated categorically that she does not want to go with the petitioner. she wants to return along with respondents 3 to 5. she is not under illegal detention or confinement of any one. it is true that there was some earlier relationship between the alleged detenue and the petitioner when she was a small child. she does not now want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. she made a categoric assertion that she wants to return from court along with respondents 3 to 5. 5. the petitioner initially found it difficult to accept the response of the alleged detenue. we interacted with them alone. we are convinced now that the alleged detenue is not speaking under any threat, pressure or influence. she stated voluntarily that she does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner and wants to return from court along with respondents 3 to 5. we accept the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue, who has crossed the age of majority. we are satisfied that her response can be accepted by the court. 6. the alleged detenue states that a camera belonging to her is available with the petitioner. the petitioner agrees to return the same to the alleged detenue through the counsel appearing for the parties in this case. the petitioner has with him some greeting cards and a stamp size photograph of the alleged detenue. the alleged detenue and.....

Full Judgment

O R D E R

R. BASANT &

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

W.P.(Crl.) No. 398 of 2010 S

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to search for, trace and produce Ramshitha, a young girl, aged about 18 years (date of birth 19.8.1992). She is a student of Plus two course. She is residing along with her parents and her brother. The petitioner and the alleged detenue Ramshitha were in love. According to the petitioner, she had come to his house and both of them had eloped earlier. She was aged about 15 years then. Later she was produced before the Magistrate. As Ramshitha had not attained the age of 18 years then, she was sent along with her parents. According to the petitioner, Ramshitha had wanted to go with him and she had asserted that as soon as she attains majority she will join the petitioner. The petitioner waited patiently till she attains the age of 18 years. After she attained the age of 18 years, the petitioner wanted to resume the relationship with the alleged detenue. But the alleged detenue was being illegally detained and confined by her parents. She was not being permitted to contact the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 7.10.2010. The case was posted to 8.20.10, 12.10.10 and 18.10.2010.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and after perusing the documents produced and after hearing the learned Government Pleader, who took instructions from the police about the previous proceedings before the Valiyathura Police Station/Magistrate, we admitted this petition on 22.10.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.

3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have appeared before Court. They are also represented by a counsel. The alleged detenue has come to Court along with/in the custody of respondents 3 to 5, who are allegedly detaining and confining her. We permitted her to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity to no one to interact with her. The alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. During the pre-lunch session she was permitted to remain in the Chamber. After the lunch recess we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of respondents 3 and 4. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader were present.

4. In our interactions with the alleged detenue, she stated categorically that she does not want to go with the petitioner. She wants to return along with respondents 3 to 5. She is not under illegal detention or confinement of any one. It is true that there was some earlier relationship between the alleged detenue and the petitioner when she was a small child. She does not now want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. She made a categoric assertion that she wants to return from Court along with respondents 3 to 5.

5. The petitioner initially found it difficult to accept the response of the alleged detenue. We interacted with them alone. We are convinced now that the alleged detenue is not speaking under any threat, pressure or influence. She stated voluntarily that she does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner and wants to return from Court along with respondents 3 to 5. We accept the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue, who has crossed the age of majority. We are satisfied that her response can be accepted by the Court.

6. The alleged detenue states that a camera belonging to her is available with the petitioner. The petitioner agrees to return the same to the alleged detenue through the counsel appearing for the parties in this case. The petitioner has with him some greeting cards and a stamp size photograph of the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue and respondents 3 to 5 requested that they be returned to them. The petitioner was initially reluctant to do the same, but later he agreed to destroy the same. Accordingly counsel for the petitioner has destroyed the greeting cards and the photograph which were available with the petitioner in our presence. Both sides agree to forget and forgive all events which had taken place in the past. We are satisfied that the Writ Petition can now be dismissed.

7. In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed.

b) The alleged detenue, Ramshitha is permitted to leave the Court along with respondents 3 to 5 as desired by her.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Subinsha vs District Superintendent of Police and ors. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge R. Basant; M.L. Joseph Francis, Jj.

Right to Information