Dismissed

R. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/117/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father regarding his missing daughter, the second respondent produced the detenue before the court. Finding the relief sought infructuous upon identification, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the relief sought became infructuous after the detention was resolved before the court.

R. Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 14.02.2013

¶3

Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶4

H.C.P.(MD)No.117 of 2013

R.Subramanian

.. Petitioner

-Vs -

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichirapalli district, Trichirapalli.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichirapalli.

¶10

3.A.Vadivel

¶11

4.S.Saravanan .. Respondents

¶12

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing the second respondent to secure and produce the body of the detenue, petitioner's daughter S.Vanmalar aged 20 years before this court and set her at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy

¶14

For RR – 1 & 2 : Mr.A.Ramar Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶15

For R – 3 : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.)

¶18

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue by name Vanmalar aged about 20.

¶19

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the father of the detenue and she has been missing from 15.01.2013 and a complaint has been given to the second respondent and no effective action has been taken. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed so as to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The second respondent has produced the detenue by name Vanmalar and she has been identified by the petitioner who is none other than her father.

¶21

¶22

Considering the fact that the second respondent has produced the detenue and she has been identified by the petitioner, the relief sought for in the petition has become infructuous and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Deputy Registrar(Writs)

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichirapalli district, Trichirapalli.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichirapalli.

¶32

3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

+1cc to the Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja,Advocate 9525

¶34

H.C.P.(MD)No.117 of 2013 14.02.2013

¶35

rg.28/02/2013 2p/5c

¶36

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

R. Subramanian v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Subramanian v. the Superintendent 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

Pushpam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vellaiammal, Vs the District Collector and

B.Asha Vs Deputy Superintendent of Polic

U. Lingam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S. Mahendran Vs the Secretary to Govt.