Vipin Hari H v. District Police Chief, CCSB Road Civil Station Ward, Alappuzha; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the DySP, Park Junction, Kayamkulam; The Station House Officer, Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Thrikkunnappuzha P.O, Alappuzha – 690 515; Narayan Reddy Pedaballi, 10/93, Nagalakatta, Chennur Town, Chennur Mandal, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh – 516 162; District Police Chief, SH 31, Maria Puram, Kadapa; District, Andhra Pradesh State – 516 001

1 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **WP(Crl.).No.93 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **VIPIN HARI H, AGED 27 YEARS S/O M.HARIMON, MADHAVAM HOUSE THRIKKUNNAPUZHA P.O, PATHIYANKARA MURI THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690 515** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.BENO SRI.S.SAMEER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** > 1. **DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CCSB ROAD CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA KERALA- 688012. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE** 2. **DYSP, PARK JUNCTION, KP ROAD, KAYAMKULAM – 690 502** 3. **THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA P.O, ALAPPUZHA – 690 515 NARAYAN REDDY PEDABALLI, 10/93, NAGALAKATTA,** 4. **CHENNUR TOWN, CHENNUR MANDAL, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 516 162** **DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, SH 31, MARIA PURAM, KADAPA** 5. **DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 516 001.** > R1, R2, **SRI.K B RAMANAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER .** R3 AND R5 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.HARILAL, J.** This writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the alleged detenue, by name, Bhargavi Reddy Pedaballi, aged 27 years is under the unlawful detention of the fourth respondent, her father. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the detenue were classmates in Global College of Engineering at Kadappa in Andhra Pradesh during the academic year 2011-2015. While so, they fell in love with each other and they decided to get married at the earliest. They postponed their marriage till the petitioner gets a job and the petitioner got a permanent employment in Honey Well International, Pune as Software Engineer in 2018. Immediately, the detenue informed the fourth respondent that she wants to get married with the petitioner. But he opposed the proposed marriage and thereafter, she 3 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 was not allowed to move outside the house. While so, the detenue came to Bangalore to meet her sister and the petitioner went to Bangalore and met her. Then they decided to live together and came back to Kerala on 12.12.2019. In the meantime, the fourth respondent knew that the detenue eloped with the petitioner. On 13.12.2019, the fourth respondent along with other relatives of the detenue, arrived at Thrikkunnapuzha, where the petitioner and the detenue were residing together and met them. The fourth respondent made the petitioner and the detenue to believe that they accepted the petitioner as the husband of the detenue and they will conduct a formal marriage ceremony within a short period. So also it was informed that subsequent to the missing of the detenue, mother of the detenue has lost her mental condition and fell down. In such circumstance, believing the promise and the words of the fourth respondent and his relatives, the detenue went along with the fourth respondent to Kadappa, where her 4 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 parental home is situated. Thereafter, the petitioner could not contact the detenue even though on several times he tried to contact her. The petitioner got information from one of the friends of the detenue that the detenue is illegally detained by the fourth respondent and trying to conduct marriage of the detenue with another person against her will and wish. The detenue through that friend intimated the petitioner that the fourth respondent fixed the marriage of the detenue with another person and unless the petitioner seeks legal remedies, she will not be liberated from the unlawful custody. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenue before this Court and set her free. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner has produced Exts P1 to P4 along with the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. We have meticulously gone through the averments in the writ petition. Admittedly, the fourth 5 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 respondent is residing at Chennur Town at Kadappa District in Andhra Pradesh and the detenue is unlawfully detained in his house. Thus, the place of detention is within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Further, we find that the allegations in the writ petition is that the detenue along with the petitioner came to the house of the 4[th] respondent on 12.12.2019 from Bangalore and on 13.12.2019, the next day, the fourth respondent and relatives came to his house and made them to believe that he accepted the petitioner as his son-in-law and a formal marriage will be conducted in accordance with the customs and ceremonies within a short period. He further made a request to give permission to the detenue to return along with him to Andhra Pradesh. So also the petitioner and the detenue were made to believe that the mother of the detenue has lost mental condition and fell down. Believing the said statements, she went along with the fourth respondent. In Ext P4 complaint filed before the fifth respondent and Ext P3 complaint 6 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 filed before the first respondent, the petitioner has stated that believing the words of the fourth respondent, she returned with the fourth respondent to Andhra Pradesh and later it is revealed that he has confined her to his illegal custody. Thus, we find that no part of the cause of action alleging illegal detention has arisen within the territory of the State of Kerala. In short, the detenue went along with the fourth respondent on 13.12.2019 from Kerala on her own volition and it cannot be treated as a part of illegal detention, if any, imposed by the fourth respondent. 4. In the light of the combined reading of Article 226 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, we find that the place of detention is in a territory within the State of Andhra Pradesh. So the Authority against which relief is sought is situated, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territory of the State of Kerala. Hence, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition 7 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above view is supported by the Full Bench decision of this Court in **2018 (3) KLT 255 (FB) [Dental Council of India v. Viswanath].** Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. We make it clear that this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from approaching competent Court seeking appropriate remedies, in accordance with law. **Sd/-** **K.HARILAL JUDGE** **Sd/-** Sks/19.3.2020 **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** 8 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1-ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH P2-TRUE COPY OF THE CHAT MESSAGES BETWEEN THE DETENUE AND THE PETITIONERS P3-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT P4-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. 9 WP(Crl) 93 of 2020 Sks/19.3.2020