Habeas corpus petition filed regarding the disappearance of petitioner's wife and two minor daughters. SUSPECT (Respondent 3) denied involvement. Bench dismissed petition due to lack of detention, directing police to continue investigation.
Petition dismissed; order directing police to continue investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2011
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.88 of 2011
T.Manohar ..Petitioner Vs.
1.State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
3.R.Sampath ..Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's wife namely Dhanalakshmi, aged 30 years and the petitioner's daughters namely Subha, aged 11 years and Sandhya, aged 6 years, before this Court and to set them at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondents-1 :Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, and 2 Addl.Public.Pleader. For Respondent-3 :Mr.S.Ramasamy
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J)
The petitioner, complaining about the missing of his wife and two minor daughters, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition. According to the petitioner, his wife and two minor daughters have gone out on 25.10.2010 and thereafter, they have not returned ba ck Ho me. Since the complaint given to the police has not been taken serious note of by the respondent Police, he has approached this Court by filing this Petition.
2.On notice, the 3rd respondent, who is suspected to have kidnapped the detenues, appeared before this Court and deposed that he has nothing to do with the detenues and he is not aware of their whereabouts. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that an enquiry was conducted, in which the 3rd respondent pleaded ignorance of the whereabouts of the detenues and stated that he has nothing to do in the missing of the detenues. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the enquiry revealed that there has been frequent quarrel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ between the petitioner and the detenue wife and may be because of that she might have gone out of the matrimonial home, along with the minor
2
daughters, to lead a life of her own.
3.In the light of the above, it is to be construed that the detenues are not in the custody of the 3rd respondent and therefore nothing remains to be considered further in this petition. Accordingly, the same is di smissed. However, the respondent Police is directed to continue further investigation on the complaint given by the petitioner to trace the detenues, namely the wife and two minor daughters of the petitioner, and any information is obtained, the same shall be passed on to the petitioner.
4.With the above observation, the habeas corpus petition is
dismissed.
SD
ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/
SUB ASST REGISTRAR
gb
To:
1.The Inspecgtor of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
DM:2011:APRIL:21:
Order in HCP(MD)No.88/2011 Dated:07.04.2011 2P:5C::
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to produce his missing wife and minor daughters.
Whether the apprehended civil dispute constitutes an arrest or unlawful detention necessitating habeas corpus intervention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Manohar
State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District.
The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
R.Sampath
S.Rajeswaran
G.M.Akbar Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
