Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M JAICHANDREN
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 09.12.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDRENANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.S.NAGAMUTHUH.C.P.(MD)No.673 of 2011S.Chinnammal: PetitionerVs1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Colachel, Kanyakumari District.
The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crime No. 353 of 2011.
Kali Pillai.: RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issuea Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition to direct the first respondent to produce the person or body of Shreeja (minor) aged about 16 years, granddaughter of the petitioner from their illegal custody of the labour working in the fourth respondent's Company hailing from North India before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Ruseel RajFor R.1 to 3: Mr.A.Ramar, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J.]This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to produce the detenue, namely, Shreeja, aged about 16 years, grand daughter of the petitioner, before this Court and to hand her over to the custody of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has stated that her daughter, namely,N.Nirmala, had been bedridden and she had been deserted by her husband.
Shehas two children. The elder daughter by name, Shreeja, was studying plus two course, at Bernatheth Higher Secondary School, Managalakundu. She used to work in a coir factory, belonging to the fourth respondent, during her holidays. While so, she has been missing, from 8.7.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that her grand daughter has been missing, from 8.7.2011.The complaint had been registered as a 'girl missing' case, by the third respondent police, in Crime No.353 of 2011. Thereafter, as no effective steps had been taken, the petitioner has come before this Court, by filing the present Habeas Corpus petition. 3. In the status report, dated 5.12.2011, filed by the third respondent, it has been stated that the detenue had eloped with one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2A.Vijesh kumar of UttarPradesh, who was working as a coolie in the fourth respondent Company.
It has been learnt that the detenue has also married the said A.Vijesh kumar. When the special team had visited the village ofA.Vijesh Kumar, namely, Allipur village, Kajipure District, Uttarpradesh, he was not available in the said village. 4. It has also been stated that a 'woman missing case' had been registered and it has been, later, altered as a case, under Section 366I.P.C. It has also been stated that effective steps are being taken, by the respondent police, to trace the detenue and to bring her back from Allipurvillage, Kajipure District, Uttarpradesh.
In view of the statements made in the status reports, filed by the third respondent, this Court is of the view that no further orders are necessary in the present Habeas Corpus petition. Hence, this HabeasCorpus petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that the respondent police concerned shall continue with the investigation, in CrimeNo.353 of 2011, and take appropriate steps, as per law. The Superintendentof Police, Kanyakumari District, the first respondent herein, shall monitor the investigation. The respondent police shall inform the petitioner, if any substantial information is obtained about the whereabouts of thedetenue.SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( Accounts )/TRUE COPY/ssmASST REGISTRAR To1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Colachel, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 4. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.DM::2011:DECEMBER:29:: H.C.P.(MD)No.673 of 201109.12.20112p:5c::
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.