Shron Peter vs The Commissioner of Police, The Circle Inspector of Police and A.N. Suresh

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Sruthi, a young woman aged 20 years (date of birth: 23/11/1989), who, the petitioner apprehended, is being illegally detained and confined by the 4th respondent, her father. According to the petitioner, he and Sruthi are class mates. Both have studied for B.Com degree. Final examinations are offer. They had occasion to meet each other and be intimate. They had decided to get married. Once they had tried to elope, they were taken to the police station. There, it was recorded that after the petitioner (date of birth: 26/6/1989) attains the age of 21 years, they shall be free to decide on their future. But, according to him, Sruthi, who was taken from the police station by her parents, was subsequently being detained, confined and subjected to torture and ill treatment by her father. She was about to be given in marriage to some other person against her will and without her consent.

This petition was filed on 04/05/2010. It came up before the vacation Bench on 06/05/2010. It was directed that the case be posted after vacation. The matter was admitted on 19/5/2010 and was posted to this date. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his Counsel are present. The 4th respondent has come to court along with his wife. He is represented by a counsel.

As the alleged detenu comes to court along with her father, the 4th respondent, who is alleged to be detaining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader were present.

The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she is not under the illegal confinement or detention of anyone. She admits that the petitioner is her classmate and they were friendly and close to each other also. But she has taken the voluntary and firm decision not to continue the relationship. She has contracted another marriage on 23/5/2010. She is now living with her husband. She stated before us categorically that she wants to return with her father the 4th respondent with whom she has come to court.

We are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We accept her request that she be permitted to return from court along with her father, the 4th respondent, with whom she has come to court. We accept her statement that she wants to reside with her husband.

In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement or not. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under confinement. No further directions are necessary in this writ petition, in these circumstances.

However, we did attempt to find out whether the parties can settle their disputes amicably. We are satisfied that with the assistance of sublime Counsel, who appear for the petitioner and the 4th respondent, we have been able to persuade them to come to a harmonious settlement. The petitioner accepts that the alleged detenue has got married and undertakes that he shall not, in any way, cause any disturbance or obstruction to the happy married life of the alleged detenue with her husband. He further undertakes that he shall hand over to the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent the mark list of the first semester examination of the alleged detenue, which he has with him by 27/05/2010. On proper acknowledgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioner shall hand over the same to the learned Counsel for the the respondent. There is also an assertion that the identification card of the alleged detenue is available with the petitioner. The petitioner does not remember the same exactly. However, he undertakes that if the I.D. card issued by the alleged detenue''s college to her is available with him, the same shall also be returned through Counsel on proper acknowledgment by 27/5/2010.

It is stated that certain photographs of the alleged detenue are available in the mobile phone of the petitioner. The petitioner accepts the same and has voluntarily handed over the memory card of the mobile phone to the alleged detenue. The same has been received by her. She has checked the photographs and confirmed that those are the photographs, which she apprehends, may possibly be misused. Memory card was destroyed in our presence after the same was handed over to the alleged detenue. No further orders are necessary.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is agreed that the acknowledgment for handing over of the mark list and I.D. card (if available) will be filed in court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on or before 28/05/2010.