Chinnasamy v. State Rep.by1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, Trichy District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankuruchi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.03.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALIH.C.P.(MD)No.200 of 2011 Chinnasamy... PetitionerVs. State Rep.by1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, Trichy District.
The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station, Trichy District.
Ravikumar... RespondentsPRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the 2nd respondent to produce the person or body of the petitioner's younger daughter Vijayalakshmiaged 19 years before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Muthal RajFor Respondents1 & 2: Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Addl. Public ProsecutorFor Respondent 3: Mr.A.S.GopalamanikandanO R D E R(Order of this Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J.)The petitioner/father has filed this petition to trace thedetenue/Vijayalakshmi, who is his younger daughter, aged about 19years. 2. According to him, the 3rd respondent kidnapped her on08.03.2011. A complaint was given by the petitioner, which was not seriously persuaded by the Police department. Hence, he filed this petition. 3. On notice, the respondent/Police has brought both the 3rdrespondent and the detenue/Vijayalakshmi before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
We enquired the detenue/Vijayalakshmi and the 3rd respondent and they informed that both of them are married on 11.03.2011 and they are living together happily with the 3rd respondent’s parents house. The 3rd respondent also submits that he is doing agricultural activities. The 3rd respondent paternal uncle was also present before this Court and on enquiry, he also confirmed the said fact that both of them are married and they are living in his brother’s house, who is the father of the 3rd respondent. The detenue/Vijayalakshmi, who is also aged about 19 years, while admitting the fact of marriage would like to go only with the 3rd respondent and she says that she is living happily with him. 5. The petitioner/father of the detenue was also present before this Court and on enquiry, he said that if the detenue/Vijayalakshmiand the 3rd respondent married and the detenue/Vijayalakshmi wants to live with the 3rd respondent, the Court may pass appropriate orders on that basis. 6. In the light of the above fact that thedetenue/Vijayalakshmi has married the 3rd respondent and reported tobe living happily with him in his house, we do not find any merits in this petition. Hence, this petition is closed as the detenue is not being kept under illegal detention by the 3rd respondent. 7. In the light of the above order passed, the respondentPolice may pass appropriate orders on the complaint registered against the 3rd respondent. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (P&A)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, Trichy District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station, Trichy District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.S.Muthalraj, Advocate Sr.No.6188+1cc to the Mr.A.S.Gopalamanikandan, Advocate Sr.No.6262nbjssk/31.03.2011 /6c-2p/- H.C.P.(MD)No.200 of 201114.03.2011
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.