Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Provisions considered
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 19.08.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANHabeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.699 of 2011V.Chinnappa.. Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Alanganallur, Madurai District.
Krishnan Ashari4.Anand5.Latha6.Mahendran7.Saranya .. RespondentsPrayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1and 2 to secure and produce the detenue or body of the detenue namelyC.Chandrika, D/o.V.Chinnappa, aged about 21 years who is under the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 7, before this court and set herat liberty. For petitioner : Mr.B.Prahlad Ravi for M/s.Hall Mark AssociatesFor 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 1 and 2 to secure and produce his daughter/thedetenue, by name C.Chandrika, aged about 21 years, before this Courtand set her at liberty, alleging that the detenue is under the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The petitioner is the father of the detenue-Chandrika, aged about 21 years. According to the petitioner, the detenue is his fourth daughter and he fixed her marriage; that the engagement was also held on 10.07.2011 in the bridegroom's house; that all of asudden, on 08.08.2011, she went out of the house and did not return. The petitioner suspects that the respondents 3 to 7 would have abducted her daughter along with 15 sovereigns of jewellery and acash amount of Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner made a complaint to the second respondent-Police on 09.08.2011 and also submitted arepresentation to the first respondent-Police. Since no effective steps were taken to trace his daughter, the petitioner has come forward before this Court by way of filing the present Habeas CorpusPetition. 3. Today, the detenue-Chandrika and the petitioner appeared before us. When we enquired, the detenue-Chandrika stated before us that she loved the fourth respondent-Anand for three years and she got married to him. She further stated that she is not under the illegal custody of any one. She also expressed her unwillingness togo along with the petitioner/her father. 4. The detenue-Chandrika is a major. From the statement given by her, it appears that she was not abducted by any one. Therefore, she is not under the illegal custody of any one much less the respondents 3 to 7. Further she stated that she want to go only along with the fourth respondent/her husband, and not willing to goalong with the petitioner/her father. Under the circumstances, recording the statement of the detenue-Chandrika, the Habeas CorpusPetition is closed, as nothing further remains to be considered. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (A.S.)/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Alanganallur, Madurai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.KMakm/29.8.11/2p-4c/ HCP(MD)No.699 of 2011 19.08.2011
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.