P. Satheesh Kumar vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Original petition to direct the 1st respondent to give instruction to the 2nd respondent to register FIR and initiate necessary action in accordance with law on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 25.09.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.

It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner and one Joe Rameesha Subashini were studying in 10th standard, they loved each other and after completing higher secondary studies the said Joe Rameesha Subashini joined in Under Graduate degree in a college at Chennai and the petitioner, after completing his diploma, has joined in a training institute at Trichy. During these period, they continued to love each other and due to their deep love and close relationship, she became pregnant and apprehending the consequences, both left for Kerala and stayed at Varkala with the support of his friends. There, the said Joe Rameesha Subashini gave birth to a female child viz.,Sana Minesha. In the year 2007, the petitioner left the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her child and went to Qatar and got employment there. Using his absence, the accused persons Ganana Arulmani, Andrew Pratheesh, had taken his wife and child with them.

Thereafter, the father of the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her brother, had arranged marriage for her with one Samson Dinesh in the year 2011 stating that the said child was an adopted one. After the marriage, when the said Samson Dinesh came to know the fact that already the said Joe Rameesha Subashini had a daughter and the said fact has been suppressed, as if it was an adopted child, he had moved petition for divorce and divorce was also granted.

In the mean time, the petitioner has also got married in the year 2011 with one Kavitha and due to the wedlock, he blessed with a female child viz., Pratheesha. In the year 2012 the said Joe Rameesha Subashini contacted the petitioner and asked to take care herself and her child viz., Sana Minesha. Accordingly, the petitioner agreed to take care of them and he was maintaining both of his wives and children well and there was no objection from any side so far. Whenever he visits India, he will meet the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and the child Sana Minesha.

It is the further case of the petitioner that when he was Abroad, he used to contact the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her child over phone daily and he also decided to take the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her daughter Abroad and hence, he applied for passport for both and accordingly, passport has been obtained for them.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on 11.08.2011 the father of the said Joe Rameesha Subashini scolded the petitioner and informed that he will give marriage of his daughter to someone else and on 16.08.2015, the petitioner came to know that Joe Rameesha Subashini and her child are in Srilanka with her brother. Hence, the petitioner contended that the conduct of the father of the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her brother, is highly illegal.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her child are not in safe custody and therefore, he preferred complaints to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor Sub-Division and also to the Inspector of Police, Valliyoor, requesting them to trace the whereabouts of the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her daughter and handover them to him. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition in H.C.P. (MD) No. 1372 of 2015 before this Court praying to give direction to the respondents therein to secure the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her daughter and produce them before this Court. However, this Court rejected the request of the petitioner by order dated 06.10.2015 and held that the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the appropriate civil forum.

However, on 25.09.2015 the petitioner sent a detailed complaint to the 2nd respondent and other higher officials, requesting to take necessary action against the accused persons. Since no action has been taken on the basis of the petitioner''s complaint, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Criminal Original Petition for the aforesaid relief.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police.

It is seen that for the production of the said Joe Rameesha Subashini and her child, the petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.(MD) No. 1372 of 2015 before this Court and this Court by order dated 06.10.2015 dismissed the petition and observed as follows:

"3. We have considered the above submissions. Even according to the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition, there was no marriage between him and Joe Rameesha Subashini. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has got two wives. One Kavitha is the other other wife of the petitioner. But, according to the learned counsel, though Kavitha claims to be the first wife, Joe Rameesha Subashini is the legally wedded wife. He would further submit that the fifth respondent has got no authority to keep them in his custody. In our considered view, the dispute is purely civil in nature. As of now, it is not possible for the production of Joe Rameesha Subashini from Srilanka, where she has been residing with her brother. The child is after all with her mother viz., Joe Rameesha Subashini. Therefore, there is no illegal detention. If the petitioner has got any legal right, he can work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court, since the same is civil in nature. In our considered view, by filing this Habeas Corpus petition, the valuable time of this Court has been wasted. Knowing fully well that Joe Rameesha Subashini is only with her brother with the knowledge of her father, the petitioner, in stead of working out his remedy before the competent civil forum, has come to this Court wrongly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court as though they have been illegally detained. Thus, in our considered view, it is clear abuse of process of Court. Therefore, we are inclined to dimiss this petition with heavy cost.

In the result, this Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The cost shall be paid by the petitioner by way of Demand Draft drawn in the name of the Headmaster, Government High School Palavoor, Tirunelveli District, on or before 28.10.2015. The petitioner shall produce the Demand Draft to the Register (Judicial) of this Bench and the Registrar (Judicial) shall thereafter, hand over the same to the Headmaster, Government High School, Palavoor, Tirunelveli District. The Headmaster of the school shall spend the entire amount for any development purpose of the school. After spending the amount, the Headmaster shall submit a report with regard to the details of expenditure to this Court as well as to the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli."

It is an unfortunate case that the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition, by way of backdoor entry to settle his issue before this Court by preferring a complaint before the respondents Police. Even in the affidavit, he admitted that the said Joe Rameesha Subashini married one Samson Dinesh in the year 2011 and the petitioner got married with one Kavitha in the year 2011 and also having a female child viz., Pratheesha. Now the said Joe Rameesha Subashini stated to be got divorce and now she is staying with her brother at Srilanka. Even according to the petitioner, there was no marriage between him and the said Joe Rameesha Subashini, but, the petitioner stated that he is having two wives i.e., one is Kavitha and another one is Joe Rameesha Subashini. If that be so, the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum for resolving the disputed question of fact. Even this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition by order dated 06.10.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Without approaching the Civil Court, the petitioner once again approaching this Court by filing the present Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the respondent Police to register a case against the said Joe Rameesha Subashini''s father and her brother, which is construed as a clear abuse of process of law. If the petitioner claims that the said Joe Rameesha Subashini is his wife, he can very well approach the appropriate forum and establish his right. After obtaining a dismissal order in the Habeas Corpus petition with costs, the act of the petitioner in knocking at the doors of this Court again by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is highly depreciable and condemnable, which has to be curtailed with iron hands.

Hence, I am of the considered view, the Criminal Original petition has to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, which, in turn, shall be forwarded to the persons affected in the recent flood disaster in Chennai. The petitioner is directed to pay the costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is represented that the petitioner has not paid the cost of Rs. 25,000/- which was imposed by the Division Bench in H.C.P.(MD) No. 1372 of 2015. A person like the petitioner cannot take the Court for a ride and abuse it for his selfish motive.