R.Mohanraj v. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 26.08.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANHabeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.319 of 2011R.Mohanraj.. Petitioner Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Ponraj4.Saravanan .. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenue namely Risa Briskila, D/o.Ramasamy Nadar, aged 21 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana RajendranFor respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.)This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to produce his daughter by name Risa Briskila, aged 21 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner is the father of the detenue-Risa Briskilaaged about 21 years. According to the petitioner, the detenue was working in a private company by name M/s.Seltan at Valliyur for the past two months and that on 05.04.2011, she did not return back home from the office. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent, with the help of third respondent, has abducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2his daughter. The petitioner gave a complaint before the secondrespondent-Police on 15.04.2011. Since no sincere efforts were made by the Police to trace the detenue, the petitioner has come forward before this Court by way of filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Today, the detenue-Risa Briskila and her father/thepetitioner herein, appeared in person before us. When we enquired, the detenue has categorically stated that she got married to the fourth respondent, who was working with her and now she is living with him. She also stated that she is not willing to go along withher father/the petitioner herein and she is willing to go only along with her husband/the fourth respondent herein. She further stated that she is not under the illegal custody of any one.
The detenue is a major. She has stated that she is willing to go only with her husband/the fourth respondent herein and not willing to go along with her father/the petitioner herein. Further, from her statement, it appears that she is not under the illegal custody of any one, much less the third and fourth respondents. Hence, recording the statement of the detenue, the Habeas CorpusPetition is closed as nothing further remains to be considered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Kmssk/19.09.2011 /4c-2p/- HCP(MD)No.319 of 2011 26.08.2011
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.