G.P.Logesh v. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 10.03.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALIH.C.P.(MD)Nos.117 and 128 of 2011and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011H.C.P.(MD)No.117 of 2011:G.P.Logesh... PetitionerVs.
The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District (Crime No.43 of 2011)
Gopi4.The Inspector of Police, Thirukkoranam Police Station, Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.... RespondentsPRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing therespondents to produce the body or person of the detenue by nameG.P.Pushpa, D/o G.Palanisamy, aged about 20 years, who has been illegallydetained by the 3rd respondent and produce her before this Court and sether at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.ThiruvadikumarFor RespondentsNos. 1, 2, 4 and : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, APPFor Respondent No. 3 : Mr. K. Rama. Bharathi.H.C.P.(MD)No.128 of 2011:R.Karthik... PetitionerVs.1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukokaranam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.
Annadurai6.Palanichamy... RespondentsPRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2and 2nd respondents to produce the petitioner's parents namely, K.Ramasamyand R.Padmavathy either in person or body before this Court and thereuponset them at liberty from the illegal detention of the 5th and 6th respondentforwith. For Petitioner: Mr.L.MadhusudhananFor Respondents RR 1 TO 4: Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, APPCOMMON ORDER(Order of this Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J.)The petition in H.C.P.(MD)No.117 of 2001 has been filed to directthe respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue by nameG.P.Pushpa, D/o G.Palanisamy, aged about 20 years, who has been illegallydetained by the 3rd respondent and produce her before this Court. 2. The petitioner is the brother of the detenue by name Pushpa, agedabout 20 years.
The case of the petitioner is that he is employed in asoftware concern in Chennai and his father is working in Saudi Arabia. His sister/detenue is doing her B.Tech., in Sathyabama University, Chennai. Earlier, the petitioner was residing in Pudukkottai and hersister was also studying there and thereafter, they sifted to Chennai. The 3rd respondent herein is their family friend and he is known to thepetitioner's family. 3. On 23.09.2010, the detenue left for the college at 7.10 a.m.alongwith her college mate one Sharmila. Immediately, the said Sharmilainformed the petitioner's family that the detenue was forcibly kidnappedby the 3rd respondent along with two other persons near ICICI Bank, Vellaikkal. The petitioner's mother lodged a complaint before the Pallikkaranai Police Station, Chennai, which was registered in CrimeNo.903 of 2010 dated 23.09.2010 as a case of woman missing. Since therewas a delay in the investigation, the mother of the detenue filed apetition in H.C.P.(MD)No.1838 of 2010 before the Principal Bench of this Court, which was disposed of on 28.09.2010 with a direction to the Policeto investigate the case and produce the detenue before the JudicialMagistrate.
4. In the mean time, the detenue/Puspha has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.11253 of 2010 before this Court stating that she is married tothe 3rd respondent and prayed for a direction against the Police officialsof Pudukkottai. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed anintervening application in the said criminal original petition. Whileso, on the basis of the order passed in H.C.P.No.1838 of 2010, the Pallikkaranai Police secured the detenue and produced before the learnedJudicial Magistrate. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, thedetenue/Pushpa expressed her willingness to go with her parents and onthat basis an order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate tohandover the detenue to the parents. 5. Thereafter, on enquiry, the mother of the detenue came to knowthat the 3rd respondent herein had created a forged document with the helpof the Sub Registrar, Pudukkottai as if the marriage between the detenueand the 3rd respondent had taken place on 17.06.2010 and the marriage wasregistered on 07.07.2010 and a certificate was obtained thereafter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In the mean time, the 3rd respondent/Gopi herein movedH.C.P.No.897 of 2010 before this Court to produce the detenue/G.P.Pushpa, who is said to be kept in illegal custody. The detenue appeared beforethis Court and expressed her unwillingness to go with the 3rd respondent, who filed the H.C.P.No.897 of 2010. By recording the same, this Courtdisposed of the petition. Thereafter, it is reported that there wererepeated threats by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner's family and alsoto the detenue. 7. Whileso, marriage of the detenue/Pushpa was fixed with one SureshKumar on 07.02.2011 at Pillaiyarpatti by her parents and invitations werealso distributed. But, on 02.02.2011 at 9.00 p.m., the 3rd respondentalong with his friends trespassed into the house of the detenue withdeadly weapons and assaulted the detenue's mother, the bridegroom andother inmates and kidnapped the detenue/Pushpa. 8.A complaint was lodged in this regard before the Karaikudi NorthPolice Station, which was registered in Crime No.43 of 2011 for anoffences under Section 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 324, 366 and 506 (ii) ofI.P.C. In spite of the efforts of the 2nd respondent so far the detenuehas not been secured.
Therefore, the above petition has been filed. 9. After notice, the petitioner and the detenue/Pushpa along withtheir counsel came to this Court and submitted that they are prepared tosurrender before this Court as they are innocent. Therefore, the matterwas directed to be posted today. 10. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner, the detenue, mother, brother and paternal uncle of the detenue, the 3rdrespondent, the father of the 3rd respondent/Gopi and the elder brother ofthe 3rd respondent were all present along with their respective counsel. 11. We held detailed discussions with all present in the chambers, particularly with the detenue/Pushpa. The detenue/Pushpa clearly statedthat what has happened so far was against her will and wish and she wasforced to be with the 3rd respondent/Gopi. She further informed that nomarriage took place with the 3rd respondent and the registration of themarriage and the alleged certificate are all false.
According to her, shenever went with the 3rd respondent to Registrar office for registration andeverything was engineered by the 3rd respondent to suit his evil design. Ultimately, the detenue expressed her willingness to go only with hermother and brother and not with the 3rd respondent/Gopi at all. She alsotold the 3rd respondent on his face in the Chambers. 12. We also enquired the 3rd respondent, brother of the 3rdrespondent and also their father. They agreed to abide by what thedetenue has decided. The relatives of the detenue are also prepared totake her with them. The 3rd respondent, the father of the 3rd respondentand the brother of the 3rd respondent have also expressed that the detenuemay be sent as per her wish. 13. In the light of the above and taking into consideration that thedetenue is 21 years of age and has taken a decision on her own, withoutanybody's compulsion or coercion, we are left with no option excepting to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4direct the detenue to go with her mother and brother.
The consent givenby the detenue, the 3rd respondent/Gopi and his family members, who arepresent before the Court are recorded. The learned counsel for both sidesalso agreed that the detenue may go along with her parents as per herwish. 14. However, before passing an order directing the detenue to goalong with her mother and brother as per her wish, taking note of the pastuntoward occurrences taken place at both ends, we direct both the parties, not to indulge in such activities in future. Both the parties aredirected to behave with restrain. 15. If any disturbance is created by the 3rd respondent or his familymembers/friends, the detenue family shall lodge a complaint before the Superintendent of Police concerned and on such complaint being given, the Superintendent of Police concerned shall initiate action immediatelyagainst the erring party in accordance with law. 16. This order is being passed with the consent of both the partiesmore particularly, with the consent of the detenue/Pushpa and the 3rdrespondent/Gopi and in the presence of the relatives and the respectivecounsel.
17. In the result, H.C.P.No.117 of 2011 is closed in the aboveterms. Consequent upon this order passed in this petition, the petitionin H.C.P.(MD)No.128 of 2011 is also closed as no separate order needs tobe passed. 18. Since the mother, brother and the paternal uncle of the detenueexpressed danger at the hands of the 3rd respondent and others, we directthe Inspector of Police, who is present here, to accompany the detenue andher family members of the detenue to their place of residence. SDDEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS)/TRUE COPY/nbjASST REGISTRARTo1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District(Crime No.43 of 2011) 3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukkoranam Police Station, Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 5. The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1CC TO MR. A. THIRUVADIKUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 5820:DM::2011:MARCH:31:: H.C.P.(MD)Nos.117 and 128 of 20114P:8CC'S::10.03.2011
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 10 Mar 2011. The bench was S RAJESWARAN.
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.