Kerala High Court
WP(Crl.)/399/2025 of ARCHA CHANDRAN B Vs STATE OF KERALA on 8 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(CRL.) NO. 399 OF 2025 PETITIONER: ARCHA CHANDRAN B, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O RAMACHANDRAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 399 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ARCHA CHANDRAN B, AGED 18 YEARS,
D/O RAMACHANDRAN PERAYAM,
CHANDRODAYAM, KERALAPURAM,
VELLIMAN PO, KOLLAM,
PIN – 691511.
BY ADVS.
SREERAJ M.D.
NEELANJANA NAIR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNDARA POLICE STATION, NH 744,
ELAMPALLOR, KUNDARA, KOLLAM,
PIN – 691501.
SUNIL, AGED 51 YEARS, SUNIL MANDIRAM,
PERAYAM, UMAYANALLOOR PO,
THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691020.
INDULEKHA, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O SUNIL, SUNIL MANDIRAM, PERAYAM,
UMAYANALLOOR PO, THAZHUTHALA,
KOLLAM, PIN – 691020.
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner alleges that the ‘alleged detenue’ is being detained by his own parents, namely respondents 3 and 4, because they are in disapproval of their relationship.
2. We issued notice to respondents 3 and 4 by Special Messenger, when this matter was first considered on 03.04.2025.
3. Interestingly,
today,
though respondents 3 and 4 are not present, the ‘alleged detenue’ is.
4. The ‘alleged detenue’ informed us that he wants to continue with the relationship with the petitioner and that his parents are standing against it. He, however, conceded that he came to the Court alone, without being detained by his parents. He added that his parents, however, attempted to admit him to a de-addiction centre, but asserted that he is not suffering from any such addiction.
5. Be that as it may, when the ‘alleged detenue’ himself appeared before us on his own and informed us that he is not under detention, we see no reason for the petitioner to pursue this petition any further. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA akv JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 399/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS DATED 24.03.2025