Kerala High Court
WP(Crl.)/491/2017 of GEORGE JOSE @ JOSE GEORGE Vs STATE OF KERALA on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(Crl.).No. 491 of 2017 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- GEORGE JOSE @ JOSE GEORGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(Crl.).No. 491 of 2017 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------
GEORGE JOSE @ JOSE GEORGE S/O.K.M.GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS,J.J.BHAVAN, PANCHPIR CHOWK, KOKANE NAGAR, KALEWADI, PIMPARI, PUNE CITY, MAHARASHTRA-411 017.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.M.S.VINEETH
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, PARIYARAM.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 502. 3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670 002. 4. SENTHIL BALAKRISHN, S/O.BALAKRISHN AGED 22 YEARS, PULUKKOOL HOUSE, KANARAM VAYAL, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141. 5. BALAKRISHN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PULUKKOOL HOUSE, KANARAM VAYAL, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141. 6. SARSWATHI, W/O.BALAKRISHN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PULUKKOOL HOUSE, KANARAM VAYAL, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141. 7. SAYOOJ, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 19 YEARS, PULUKKOOL HOUSE, KANARAM VAYAL, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.
3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670 002.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 491 of 2017 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE JANCY JOSE @ JANCYJ GEORGE ISSUED FROM PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE JANCY JOSE ISSUED BY THEGOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS FOR B.SC.(COMPUTERSCIENCE) (2013) EXAMINATION APRIL 2017 ISSUED FROM SAVITRIBAI PHULEPUNE UNIVERSITY TO JANCY JOSE.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19-12-2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
jg-29/12
PS TO JUDGE.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------------- WP(Crl.) No.491 of 2017
------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
A.M.Shaffique, J.
The petitioner is the father of the detenue. He hasapproached this Court alleging that the detenue is missing since14.12.2017. The detenue, Jancy Jose, is the eldest daughter of thepetitioner. They were at Pune. The detenue is a final year studentof B.Sc (Computer Science) at Indira College of Commerce, Hijwadi,Pune. On receiving information that she is under the confinementof respondent Nos.4 to 7, this writ petition has been filed.
2. The detenue is produced before this Court. We haveinteracted with her. She is of the firm opinion that she would like tocontinue the relationship with the fourth respondent.
The detenue is produced before this Court. We have
3. We have also interacted with the parents of the detenue.
They have offered to agree with the marriage with certain WP(Crl.)491/17
conditions, which the detenue or the respondent Nos.4 to 6 havenot accepted. Taking into account the aforesaid factual situationand the expression of opinion of the detenue that she would like tocontinue to stay with the fourth respondent and to continue therelationship with the fourth respondent, we do not think that anydirection as sought for can be granted.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that noticeof marriage had already been given. Taking into account theaforesaid factual situation, we dispose of this writ petition, with adirection to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent toproduce a copy of certificate of marriage before this Court within aperiod of five weeks.
A .M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
WP(Crl.)491/17
jg