Dasi Gopi v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, a direction is issued and both these habeascorpus petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. It is not a fit case, in the considered opinion of the Court, to issue a writ of habeas corpus since the petitioners havenot applied before the 2nd respondent Child Welfare Committee, forthe custody of the children and the said Bhavani respectively. However, at…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17-12-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANHCP Nos.2042 and 2043 of 2008 Dasi Gopi.. Petitioner in HCP 2042/2008Pedha Raju.. Petitioner in HCP 2043/2008vs1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police F-5, Police Station, Choolaimedu, Chennai.
Chairperson Child Welfare Committee No.300, Purasaiwalkam High Road Kellys, Chennai... Respondents 1 & 2 in both petitions 3. The Superintendent Government Children Home Royapuram, Chennai... 3rd Respondent in HCP 2042/20084.The Banyan Old No.55, New No.18, Vinobaji Street Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu Chennai.. 4th Respondent in HCP 2042/2008 and 3rd Respondent in HCP 2043/2008HCP 2042/2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondentsto produce the body of the petitioner's son detenu Srinu aged about15 years and the petitioner's daughter detenue Kumari aged about 14years before this Court and hand over custody to the petitionerforthwith. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ HCP 2043/2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondentsto produce the body of the petitioner's ward detenue Bhavani agedabout 17 years before this Court and hand over custody to thepetitioner forthwith. For Petitioners: Mr.P.Venkatasubramaniyam for Mr.A.A.JambukumaranFor Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan for RR1 to 3 in HCP 2042/2008 and for RR1 & 2 in HCP 2043/2008COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitionershave brought forth these petitions for issuance of a writ of habeascorpus. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners andalso the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The case of the petitioner in HCP 2042/2008 in short is thathe is the father and natural guardian of two children, namely sonSrinu aged 15, and daughter Kumari aged 14; that he was a poorcoolie eking his livelihood; that both the children were actuallyleft with one Babu Krishna and Smt. Nandhini for upbringing andmaintenance; that while the matter stood thus, they were actuallybeing tortured; that it came to his knowledge; that on 20.11.2008,Babu Krishna informed him that the children were illegally andforcibly taken away from his house by an organization calledBanyan, the fourth respondent herein, functioning from the oppositehouse of Babu Krishna, in collusion with the Child Line on cookedup allegations that the children were subjected to torture and weredetained by them against their will in the illegal and unlawfulcustody of the respondents 2 and 3; that on the next day, he camedown to Madras along with the paternal uncle and the naturalguardian of Bhavani after the demise of her parents, and thematernal uncle; that he came to know that Bhavani was also takenaway by the fourth respondent and detained by the secondrespondent; that he met Babu Krishna and his wife Nandhini andgathered all the details therefor; that he also went to the officeof the 2nd and 3rd respondents and requested them to permit him tosee and take his children, but it was refused, and under thecircumstances, it became necessary to file this petition beforethis Court.
The grievance of the petitioner in HCP 2043/2008 is that heis the paternal uncle of the detenue Bhavani; that since herparents died, he became the natural guardian of Bhavani; that sheis also a victim of the alleged torture in the case registered by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent police in Crime No.1474 of 2008; that he is apoor coolie; that he entrusted her to the custody of Babu Krishnaand Nandhini; that on 20.11.2008, Babu Krishna informed him that Bhavani was illegally and forcibly taken away from his house by anorganization called Banyan, the third respondent herein, allegingthat the second respondent is detaining her against her will; thatthereafter, he came down to Madras along with his relatives; thathe went to the office of the 2nd respondent and requested them topermit him to see and take his ward Bhavani; but, they refused, andhence he has approached this Court.
In answer to the above, it is contended by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor that on the complaint of the secondrespondent, a case came to be registered in Crime No.1474 of 2008and the victims are these children and the said Bhavani; thatpursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, both thechildren and Bhavani are actually in the custody of the thirdrespondent; that not even any application is made for the custodyof the children and Bhavani, and there is no impediment in makingan application before the second respondent for the custody of thechildren and Bhavani.
Operative part
It is not a fit case, in the considered opinion of the Court, to issue a writ of habeas corpus since the petitioners havenot applied before the 2nd respondent Child Welfare Committee, forthe custody of the children and the said Bhavani respectively. However, at this stage, no impediment could be felt in making suchapplications before the second respondent. In appraisement of thefacts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinionthat a direction could be given to the second respondent toconsider the request of the petitioners if and when made as to thecustody of the children namely Srinu and Kumari, and also the saidBhavani, as one required under law and also ascertain whether thepetitioner in HCP 2042/2008 is the father and natural guardian ofthe children and whether the petitioner in HCP 2043/2008 is thepaternal uncle and natural guardian of Bhavani, as contended bythem. Accordingly, a direction is issued and both these habeascorpus petitions are disposed of. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.nsv/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Inspector of Police F-5, Police Station, Choolaimedu, Chennai. 2. The Chairperson Child Welfare Committee No.300, Purasaiwalkam High Road Kellys, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Government Children Home Royapuram, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.2 ccs to Mr.A.A.Jambukumaran, Advocate, SR. 70387 and 70388HCP Nos.2042 and 2043of 2008NSM (CO)kk 22/12
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, a direction is issued and both these habeascorpus petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.