Dismissed

Panneer Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/235/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner alleged his daughter was kidnapped by respondents 2-4. The detenue appeared, stating she left voluntarily after marriage and refused contact with parents. Finding no illegal custody, the court dismissed the petition. Dispute over stolen jewels was noted but reserved for civil remedy. Disposition: dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to secure and produce the detenue and set her at liberty from illegal custody was dismissed.

Panneer Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.04.2011

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶8

Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.235 of 2011

¶9

Panner Selvam, S/o.Sivan Nadar ..Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chathiram Police Station, Pavoor Chathiram, Tirunelveli.

¶12

2.N.Inbaraj, S/o.Nesamani 3.Kanagayan 4.Rajan ..Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent No.1 to secure and produce the petitioner's daughter Sasi Rega, aged 23 years, from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.2 to 4 before this Court and to set her at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, Addl.Public.Pleader. For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.Vamanan

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J)

¶17

The petitioner, who is the father of the detenue by name Sasi Rega, has filed this habeas corpus petition to trace his daughter, aged about 23 years, who was working as a Nurse in Shalom Hospital and found missing on and from 09.03.2011. It was also noticed that she has left the house by taking a cash of Rs.85,000/-, along with gold jewels belonged to the petitioner's daughter-in-law. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 have kidnapped his daughter and kept her in Thuckalay. A complaint was given to the 1st respondent police on 15.03.2011 and a case has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been registered. It is the grievance of the petitioner that so far the 1st respondent has not taken steps to trace his daughter. Hence the above Habeas corpus petition has been filed.

¶18

¶19

2.On notice, the detenue herself appeared before this Court, along with her husband Inbaraj, the 2nd respondent, through counsel. We enquired the girl. She told the Court that she has gone out of parental house on her own and she married the 2nd respondent Inbaraj on 08.03.2011 and since then she has been living with him happily, without any complaint. She further stated that because of the harassment meted out by her own parents, she had to file a Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3585 of 2011 and obtained an order saving her from harassment. Further she stated that she does not want to talk to her parents, particularly her father, the petitioner herein. We have also enquired the 2nd respondent, who is also present along with the detenue. He also stated that he married the detenue and living happily with her as her husband, without any complaint.

¶20

3.The petitioner, father of the detenue, who is present before us, was also enquired by us. While admitting his daughter's marriage and her going away from them on her own, he only wants the detenue to hand over the jewels said to have been taken away by her, since the jewels belong to their daughter-in-law. He is very particular that the same may be directed to be returned to them. On enquiry, the detenue denies having taken jewels from the house. In view of the denial of the jewels having been taken by the detenue, no order could be passed in this regard. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in this regard, in the manner known to law.

¶21

4.In view of the fact that the detenue is not in illegal custody of any one, much less respondents 2 to 4, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶27

Pavoor Chathiram Police Station, Pavoor Chathiram, Tirunelveli.

¶28

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶29

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

¶31

ssk/21.04.2011 /3c-2p/-

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

Order in HCP(MD)No.235/2011

¶34

Dated:07.04.2011

Panneer Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panneer Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Duraipandi Vs the District Superintendent of

Murugan Vs the District Superintendent of

John Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police

N.Ayyanar Vs Superintendent of Police

Jainath Vs the Stateof T.N., Rep by Its

T. Manohar Vs the Inspector of Police