High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2024-06-03Dismissed

WP(CRL.) NO.584 OF 2024

Case / Petition Number:WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
P. M. Manoj
Judgment Date: 2024-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

XXXXX

Respondents

Director General of Police, State Police Headquarters, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695010
District Police Chief, Malappuram, PIN-676505
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilambur, Malappuram, PIN-679329
Station House Officer, Wandoor Police Station, Wandoor P.O., Malappuram, PIN-679328
Shibila, D/o Saithalavi, Panthraniyil House, Amarambalam P.O., Wandoor, Malappuram, PIN-679332
Rejina, aged 47 years, D/o Hydru, Parayangadan House, Amarambalam P.O., Malappuram, PIN-679332

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Parvathimenon
• P. Sanjay
• Bijumeenattoor
• Indira.K.P.
• Paul Varghese(Pallath)
• Kirannarayanan
• Rahul Raj P.
• Muhammed Bilal.V.A
• Meerar.Menon
• Basil Abeegam
• Devikas.Prasad

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. M. Shameer, Government Pleader
• Eldho Alias
• Revathy Kappil

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, described as the father of the corpus Ms. X, seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the production of the detenue, the victim in FIR 230/2021 (Wandoor Police Station, Malappuram) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The short facts show that after Ms. X was placed under Child Welfare Committee care, she pursued studies, and later came into contact with the 5th respondent, a woman alleged to have subjected her to sexual assault. The petitioner alleges illegal detention by respondents 5 and 6 (and seek cancellation of bail). By 30 May 2024, the court directed the 4th respondent to secure Ms. X’s production. The detenue later testified that she is living with the 6th respondent of her own free will, is above 18, and has endured mental and physical abuse at her residence. Citing Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.; and Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, the court emphasizes the habeas corpus purpose to safeguard liberty and the right of an adult to choose her place of residence under Articles 19 and 21. The petition is ultimately dismissed, upholding the detenu’s autonomy and rejecting coercive parental intervention.

Provisions of Law Cited

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

sui juris
parens patriae
habeas corpus

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his daughter, Ms. X, the detenue in FIR 230/2021 under POCSO, is illegally detained by respondents 5 and 6. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing production and argues that despite the Youth’s initial care under the Child Welfare Committee, the accused’s contact and subsequent actions suggest unlawful restraint. He requests cancellation or modification of bail in the criminal case and emphasizes complaints lodged with authorities seeking action to protect Ms. X, asserting fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ms. X is an adult (over 18) who has freely chosen to reside with the 6th respondent. They submit that there is no coercion or unlawful detention, and that the court must balance Ms. X’s safety with her autonomy. They rely on evidence indicating the detenue’s voluntary stay with the 6th respondent and stress the ongoing criminal proceedings under POCSO, as well as the guardians’ role, while urging the court to respect adult autonomy and refrain from substituting parental opinion.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi	(1976) 3 SCC 234	Positive	Cited to support that once a woman is 18 or older, her choice of with whom and where to reside cannot be fettered; she is sui juris and the court should not substitute parental wishes.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.	(2018) 16 SCC 368	Positive	Cited to emphasize habeas corpus’ core objective: liberty is safeguarded, and the court must respect the detenu’s independent choice under Articles 19 and 21.
Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas	(2018) 1 KHC 142	Positive	Cited for upholding the adult daughter's right to live with her chosen guardian, reinforcing autonomy over maternal preference.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WP(CRL.) NO.584 OF 2024 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ`** ``` MONDAY,THE3[RD]DAYOFJUNE2024/13THJYAISHTA,1946 ``` ## **`WP(CRL.) NO. 584 OF 2024`** ``` CRIMENO.230/2021OFWANDOORPOLICESTATION,MALAPPURAM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` XXXXX,AGED45YEARS XXXXXXX,PIN-679339 BYADVS. A.PARVATHIMENON P.SANJAY BIJUMEENATTOOR INDIRA.K.P. PAULVARGHESE(PALLATH) KIRANNARAYANAN RAHULRAJP. MUHAMMEDBILAL.V.A MEERAR.MENON BASILABEEGAM DEVIKAS.PRASAD ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695010`** - **`2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UPHILL,`** ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505`** - **`3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329`** - **`4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328`** - **`5 SHIBILA , D/O SAITHALAVI, PANTHRANIYIL HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332`** - **`6 REJINA AGED 47 YEARS D/O HYDRU, PARAYANGADAN HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332`** ``` R1TOR4BYSRI.P.M.SHAMEER,GOVERNMENTPLEADER ``` ``` R5&R6BYADVS.ELDHOALIAS REVATHYK.KAPPIL(K/292/2012) ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CRIMINAL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 03.06.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.** The petitioner herein is the father of the corpus (‘Ms.X’ for the sake of brevity). He has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “ Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to produce the detenue, xxx, victim in POCSO crime, FIR 230/2021 of Wandoor Police Station who is illegally detained at the behest of the 5th and 6th respondents. ## 2. The short facts are as under:- The petitioner contends that Ms. X (name withheld for privacy reasons), his daughter, is the victim in Crime No. 230/2021 of Wandoor Police Station, registered against the 5th respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The specific allegation is that the 5th respondent, a woman, subjected Ms. X to sexual assault. After the crime was registered on 27.07.2021, Ms. X was placed under the care and protection of the Child Welfare Committee, Malappuram. She later secured admission to Marcus Law College, Kozhikode. While pursuing her education, the 5th respondent managed to reestablish contact with Ms. X. The petitioner asserts that the accused's action in contacting the victim is objectionable and an application has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the accused. The ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` petitioner further states that Ms. X left home without informing her parents, prompting the lodging of a complaint to the Wandoor Police Station. She returned home on 10.12.2023, and started exhibiting hostile behaviour towards her parents. On 03.02.2024, Ms. X left her hostel, and a complaint was lodged with the 4th respondent upon receiving this information. Ms. X was traced out but she expressed her desire to stay with the 6th respondent, who is allegedly a close associate of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has lodged several complaints with the official respondents, seeking action, and claims that his daughter is being illegally detained by respondents 5 and 6. 3. By order dated 30.05.2024, we directed the 4th respondent to ensure the production of Ms. X before us. 4. We have interacted with the detenu who stated before us that she is residing in the company of the 6th respondent on her own free will. She also stated that she has been subjected to mental as well as physical abuse at her residence and that she, being an adult, has taken a conscious decision to live life on her own terms. Ms.X has admittedly crossed the age of 18 years. ## 5. In **Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi**[1] , the Apex > 1 (1976) 3 SCC 234 ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` Court held that once a woman was 18 years of age, no fetters could be placed on an individual's choice on where and with whom she wished to reside. It was observed: “…Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.[2]** has observed that the pivotal purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, > 2 (2018) 16 SCC 368 ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` provided the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the inquiry and determination have to come to an end. 7. In **Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas[3]** , the Supreme Court has held as under while upholding the choice of her adult daughter to live with her father instead of her mother. In upholding the daughter's choice, the Court observed in paragraph 11 of the judgement: 11. It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.” 8. Therefore, in a habeas corpus petition, like in the present case, when the plea before the Court is that a person should be protected against persons with whom she is moving on her own free will by making personal life choices, this Court has to recognize the right of ‘choice’ of the alleged detenu . Her right to life, liberty, and dignity is to be respected while deciding the issue. As the petitioner, who is an adult, has expressed her desire to live her life in the > 3 2018 (1) KHC 142 ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` manner she chooses, no fetters can be placed on the same. No restriction can also be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the family members of Ms.X cannot substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter. This petition is dismissed. ## **`sd/-`** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** **sd/P.M.MANOJ JUDGE** DCS ``` WP(CRL.)NO.584OF2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 584** **`/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** |**`Exhibit `**|**`P1`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL DIARY ENTRY DATED`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL DIARY ENTRY DATED`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL DIARY ENTRY DATED`**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||**`04.02.2024 OF THE WANDOOR POLICE STATION`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P2`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`COMPLAINT`** **`MADE`**|**`BY`**|**`THE`**| |||**`PETITIONER`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`2ND`** **`RESPONDENT`**||**`ON`**| |||**`08.02.2024 DATED NIL`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P3`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY `**|**`THE `**|**`2ND`**| |||**`RESPONDENT/S OFFICE DATED 08.02.2024`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P4`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`COMPLAINT`** **`MADE`**|**`BY`**|**`THE`**| |||**`PETITIONER`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`2ND`** **`RESPONDENT`**||**`ON`**| |||**`12.03.2024 DATED NIL`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P5`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`RECEIPT`** **`ISSUED`**|**`BY`**|**`THE`**| |||**`DISTRICT`** **`POLICE`** **`CHIEF’S`** **`OFFICE`**|**`DATED`**|| |||**`12.03.2024`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P6`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`FIR`** **`REGISTERED`**|**`AGAINST`**|| |||**`THE 5TH RESPONDENT, FIR NO. 0230/2021`**|||