Kavithakumary V.P. v. State of Kerala & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938 WP(Crl.).No. 99 of 2016 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- KAVITHAKUMARY V.P, AGED 30 YRS., WIFE OF LATE VIJAYAKUMAR, SREEMOOLAM, AKKAVILA, MYLOM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.J.VIMAL RESPONDENTS: - ----------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION VARKALA 695 141. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 141. 5. RINU REJI, SON OF LATE REJI, PALLIPPADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL P.O., NEAR MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 506. 6. SMT.MINI REJI, W/O.LATE REJI, PALLIPPADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL P.O., NEAR MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 506. Wpcr No.99 of 2016 Addl. 7. THE MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ADOOR. Addl. 8. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ADOOR. Addl. 9. A.P.J.ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, C.E.T.CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016. (ADDL.R7 TO R9 SUOMOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD.28.9.2016 IN WP(CRL.)99/2016. R1-R4 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R5 & 6 BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RADDL BY ADV. SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) R7 & 8 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU R9 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY ADDL.R9 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU R By SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.B.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 1669/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Wpcr No.99 of 2016 WP(Crl.).No. 99 of 2016 (S) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VARKALA MUNICIPALITY IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER MISS.VRINDA VIJAYAN DATED 4/7/2000 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/1/2016 OF THIS COURT IN WPCR NO.15/2016 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.313/2016 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION DATED 17/2/2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CSS/ ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. --------------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016** **---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**P.N.Ravindran, J.**_ The petitioner is the mother of Miss.Vrinda Vijayan. In this writ petition which was instituted on 11.3.2016, she has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce her daughter in this court, to set her daughter at liberty and to permit her daughter to go along with her. 2. Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 is a petition filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.(Crl.) No.99 of 2016 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime No.40 of 2016 of Kottarakkara Police Station and Annexure-A2 report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kottarakkara-I with a prayer to substitute the offences punishable under sections 376, 366A IPC and 3(a) and 5(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the place of section 57(a) of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 is the third respondent and her daughter is the second respondent therein. W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 2 3. The averment in W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 is that the petitioner's daughter Miss.Vrinda Vijayan who was a student undergoing the combined first and second semester B.Tech degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering at Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, left her residence at 7 AM on 4.1.2016 for the purpose of appearing for the first semester examination, that she did not return in the evening, that thereupon the petitioner filed a complaint before the Kottarakkara Police Station at about 7 PM on 4.1.2016 and based on that complaint, Crime No.40 of 2016 of Kottarakkara Police Station was registered under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner has further averred that on enquiries made, she came to understand that her daughter is in the illegal custody of the fifth respondent who has removed her to an unknown place. She has further averred that she thereupon filed WP(Crl.) No.15 of 2016 in this court praying for a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce her daughter in this court and to set her at liberty, that the said writ petition was disposed of by this court by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 18.1.2016 by entrusting custody of her daughter Miss.Vrinda Vijayan with her and with a further direction to the W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 3 Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kottarakkara to take steps to intensify the investigation and to arrest the accused. The petitioner has averred that after her daughter was entrusted to her custody, she was found missing from her house at about 6 PM on 16.02.2016 and on enquiries made by her and her sister Prasobana, they have come to know that her daughter was taken away by the fifth respondent in an autorickshaw and that she is presently in the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner has also averred that her sister Prasobana has submitted a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station who registered Crime No.16 of 2016 alleging commission of offence punishable under section 57(a) of the Kerala Police Act. She has further averred that the fifth respondent whose date of birth is 28.4.1997, has no right to keep her daughter in custody and that being the mother, she is entitled to legal custody of her daughter. She has also made averments regarding the character and antecedents of the fifth respondent. 4. This writ petition was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents on 14.3.2016. On that day, this court also directed respondents 5 and 6 to produce the petitioner's daughter in this W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 4 court, if she is in their custody. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner's daughter was produced in this court on 21.3.2016. She stated before this court that she left her house on 16.2.2016 with the intention of joining the fifth respondent and that on 17.2.2016, the fifth respondent tied a tali in a church in the presence of the sixth respondent and on that basis she is living in the house of respondents 5 and 6. She expressed her unwillingness to go with the petitioner and stated that she is determined to marry the fifth respondent and to lead a life with him. After interacting with the detenue and after considering the rival contentions, this court directed the fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala, to have the petitioner's daughter admitted at NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara. Respondents 5 and 6 were directed to meet the expenses in that regard. This court also directed the fourth respondent to depute a woman civil police officer in plain clothes to visit the petitioner's daughter every week. The petitioner and her family members as well as respondents 5 and 6 were permitted to meet and interact with her. 5. The writ petition thereafter came up for consideration before this court on 18.5.2016 and later on 20.7.2016. On that W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 5 day, the petitioner was permitted to take her daughter to the college where she was studying for the purpose of getting back the original certificates. This was for the purpose of securing admission for the petitioner's daughter for the polytechnic course at Thiruvananthapuram. The writ petition thereafter came up on 3.8.2016. On that day, after interacting with the parties, this court directed that the detenue shall continue to reside at NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara. There was also an order to effect that she shall not leave the hostel except in the company of her mother and a woman police constable. The petitioner was also permitted to meet and interact with her. The writ petition thereafter came up on 16.8.2016. On that day, this court passed an order restraining the fifth respondent from meeting and interacting with the petitioner's daughter. This court also directed that until further orders, the then existing arrangement shall continue. Later, taking note of the fact that the NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara would remain closed from 9.9.2016 to 19.9.2016, by order passed on 9.9.2016 this court directed that the petitioner's daughter shall be accommodated as an inmate in another hostel 'Athani' at Thiruvananthapuram till 19.9.2016. The fourth respondent was W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 6 directed to do the needful in the matter and to escort her back to NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara on 19.9.2016. By order passed on 23.9.2016, after interacting with the parties this court directed that the petitioner's daughter shall continue to reside at NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara. The writ petition thereafter came up before a Division Bench of this court on 28.9.2016. On that day, this court _suo motu_ impleaded the Manager and Principal of the college where the petitioner's daughter had undergone the B.Tech degree course as also APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University to which the said college is affiliated as additional respondents 7 to 9. This court also directed the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 7 and 8 to get instructions as regards the fee to be paid for re-admission to the B.Tech degree course. Learned standing counsel for the University was directed to get instructions as to whether the university can waive the stipulation regarding the last date for re-admission to the B.Tech degree course. The last date was 5.9.2016. 6. When the writ petition thereafter came up before this court on 30.9.2016, it was submitted on behalf of additional respondents 7 and 8 that the college authorities are prepared to W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 7 waive the fee payable for the first year, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's daughter had already paid the fee for the first year of the course during the previous academic year but had discontinued her studies. It was submitted that she need pay only Rs.5500/- towards caution deposit for staying at the college hostel and a hostel fee of Rs.5000/- every month. Learned standing counsel appearing for the ninth respondent university submitted that if this court so directs, the university will not object to admission being given, provided she has 75% attendance. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, this court directed additional respondents 7 and 8 to re-admit the petitioner's daughter for the B.Tech degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering. The operative portion of the order passed by this court on 30.9.2016 reads as follows: “ _We accordingly direct additional respondents 7 and 8 to readmit the petitioner's daughter for the B.Tech Degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering. The petitioner shall appear before the Principal of the College along with her daughter tomorrow itself. WE also deem it appropriate to record the submission made by the learned counsel for additional respondents 7 and 8 that the petitioner need not pay tuition fee of Rs.78,000/- for the first year of the course and that she need pay only the fee for the second, third and fourth years. As regards payment of hostel fee and caution deposit, we deem it appropriate, having regard to the financial condition of the petitioner, to give her a month's time to pay the hostel fee and caution deposit. She need pay the caution deposit and hostel fee_ W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 8 _for the month of October only towards the end of the month. We direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to take an appropriate decision regarding the readmission of the petitioner's daughter and to direct the Registrar of the University to issue orders regularising her admission for the B.Tech Degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering pursuant to this order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case on hand, we also direct the Principal of the college to issue appropriate instructions to the warden of the college hostel to ensure that no one other than the petitioner is permitted to meet and interact with the petitioner's daughter or to take her out._ ” 7. The writ petition thereafter came up before us on 26.10.2016. On that day, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on account of the interference of the fifth respondent who spread rumors about her, the petitioner's daughter was not able to attend classes. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner's daughter would like to appear in person and make a statement before this court. Learned counsel also submitted that the fifth respondent's arrest has been stayed by this court in Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016. After considering the submissions made at the Bar, we directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara to produce the petitioner's daughter in this court today. We also directed the Registry to place the records before the Honb'le the Chief Justice for the purpose of considering W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 9 whether Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 should be heard along with this writ petition. This writ petition has come up for hearing before us today along with Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016, as directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 8. When these cases were taken up today, the petitioner, her daughter Miss.Vrinda Vijayan and the fifth respondent were present in person. We interacted with the petitioner's daughter. She stated that some one had spread rumors to the effect that she is suffering from HIV and therefore, she is not in a position to attend classes at Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor. She stated that she is willing to study elsewhere. She also stated that she wants to go with her mother. The petitioner stated that she is willing to take her daughter with her and to look after her. 9. As stated earlier, the fifth respondent in W.P.(Crl.) No.99 of 2016 has filed Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 to quash Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.40 of 2016 of Kottarakkara Police Station as also Annexure-2 report to amend the charge therein. Such a relief is sought on the averment that he and the second respondent in Crl.M.C No. 1669 of 2016, who is none other than the daughter of the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No.99 of 2016 are married and are residing peacefully. It is contended that as he and the second W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 10 respondent are married and are living as husband and wife, the litigation should be permitted to be settled. He has also stated that he could not register his marriage due to the pendency of the crime against him and the threat from the relatives of the petitioner. He has also referred to the pendency of W.P.(Crl.) No.99 of 2016. 10. We heard Sri.Alan Pappali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016, Smt.Mini Elizabath learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent who incidentally is the counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 as well. We also heard Sri.K.B.Ramanand, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala as also Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned standing counsel appearing for the additional ninth respondent and Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 7 and 8. 11. As far as W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 is concerned, in view of the desire expressed by the petitioner's daughter to go with her mother and reside with her, we are of the opinion that the said writ petition can be disposed of by handing over custody of Miss.Vrinda Vijayan to her mother, the petitioner. In view of the W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 11 statement made by her to the effect that she does not wish to study in Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, we are of the opinion that the interim order earlier passed by this court on 30.9.2016 directing the college authorities to admit the petitioner's daughter to the first year B.Tech degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering and the directions issued to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University will necessarily had to be withdrawn and we do so. We also recorded the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner will take care of the educational needs of her daughter. In view of the fact that the certificates and testimonials submitted by the petitioner's daughter with the Principal, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor at the time when she was given admission for the B.Tech degree course during the previous academic year (2015-2016) are still with the college authorities, we deem it appropriate to pass an order directing additional respondents 7 and 8 to return the said documents to her. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the college authorities have not till date, deemed it appropriate to initiate any action against the petitioner or her daughter for having discontinued her studies, we are of the W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 12 opinion that they should desist from taking any action against the petitioner and her daughter invoking the provisions of the prospectus. They shall also issue a Transfer Certificate to the petitioner's daughter, within two weeks from today. 12. We shall now consider whether there is any merit in Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016. As stated earlier, Crl.M.C. No.1669 of 2016 is rested on the premise that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent therein has been solemnised and they are residing together as husband and wife. The petitioner's date of birth is 28.4.1997. He cannot enter into a valid marriage until he attains the age of 21 years. The second respondent's date of birth is 26.1.1998. She attained the age of 18 years only on 26.1.2016. She was taken away by the petitioner in the first instance on 4.1.2016. She had not, as on that date, attained the age of majority. She was entrusted to the custody of her mother on 18.1.2016. But she was again found missing from her residence on 16.2.2016. The date on which the alleged marriage was solemnised is not set out. Nor is there any evidence to prove the solemnisation of a marriage either under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, as stated earlier, the petitioner will attain the W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 13 age of 21 years only in April 2018. He cannot enter into a valid marriage prior to that date. Such being the situation, we are of the considered opinion that the entire premise on which Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 is rested falls to the ground. That apart, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed the offences punishable under sections 376, 366A IPC and 3(a) and 5(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Crime No.40 of 2016 was registered in relation to the incident took place on 4.1.2016. The second respondent was a minor as on that date. Such being the situation, even if the second respondent agrees for a compromise, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in _**State of Madhya Pradesh**_ v _**Madanlal**_ 2015(3) KLT 125(SC), more particularly, the statement of law in paragraph-16 of the said decision, we are of the opinion that the relief prayed for in Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 cannot be granted. The Apex Court has in the said decision held that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. Such being the situation, as the petitioner has not attained the age of 21 years and a compromise is alien in a case where the offence alleged is commission of rape of a minor girl, we are W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 14 persuaded to hold that the relief prayed for in Crl.M.C. No. 1669 of 2016 cannot be granted. Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 fails and is accordingly dismissed. The woman civil police officer who produced the detenue in court today shall accompany the petitioner and her daughter to their residence. **Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** **sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** css **/ true copy** **P.S.TO JUDGE** W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 15 **P.N.RAVINDRAN & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. -------------------------------------------------W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016** **---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2016** ## **ORDER** ## _**P.N.Ravindran, J.**_ When this writ petition came up for consideration today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on account of the interference of the 5[th] respondent who spread rumors about her, the petitioner's daughter was not able to attend classes. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's daughter Miss.Vrinda Vijayan would like to appear in person and make a statement before this court. Learned counsel also submitted that she did not appear in person today for the reason that there was neither an order directing her to appear in person nor an order directing the police to produce her in this court. The petitioner was however present in court. 2. It is brought to our notice that a criminal case has been registered against the 5[th] respondent (Crime No.40 of 2016 of Kottarakkara Police Station) for offences punishable under W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 16 Sections 376, 366A IPC and 3(a) and 5(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and that the 5[th] respondent has filed Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 in this court with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime No.40 of 2016 and in that Crl.M.C, a learned single judge of this court has passed an order on 18.3.2016 directing the police to avoid the 5[th] respondent's arrest until Crl.M.C. No.1669 of 2016 is heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the fact that the issues involved are intricately connected, it is only desirable that both cases are heard together. After going through the pleadings and materials on record as also the earlier orders passed by this court, we are inclined to concur with the said submission. We, therefore deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to place the records before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the purpose of considering whether Crl.M.C.No.1669 of 2016 should be heard along with this writ petition. 4. We also deem it appropriate to pass an order directing the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara Police Station to produce the petitioner's daughter who is residing at NSS Taluk Union Women's Hostel, Kottarakkara in this court at 10.15 a.m. W.P.(Crl.)No.99 of 2016 & Crl.M.C.1669 of 2016 17 on 28.10.2016. The warden of the hostel shall do the needful to enable the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara to act as directed above. We also deem it appropriate to direct the 5[th] respondent also to be present in person in this court at 10.15 a.m. on 28.10.2016. Call on 28.10.2016. Hand over copy to learned counsel on both sides. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** css **/**