Disposed

Murugesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Aug 2014HCP/1911/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition for his 17-year-old son detained illegally. Police produced the juvenile. Court directed police to produce the juvenile before the Child Welfare Committee for counselling and directed the girl respondent to be left at her place. Petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce detenu before Child Welfare Committee; petitioner directed to take custody of detenu; girl respondent left at her place.

Murugesan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 04.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶7

HCP.No.1911/2014
Murugesan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.the Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Pachal Police Station
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
4.Seetha .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in complaint dated 16.06.2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son Lokeshwaran aged about 17 years and hand over him to the petitioner.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN J.,]

¶11

The above petition has been filed by the petitioner/son of the detenu Lokeshwaran, aged about 17 years, who is said to be in the

¶12

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

¶13

illegal custody of the 4^th respondent herein, who is said to be from the same village, to cause production of his son before this Court and to hand over his custody to him.

¶14

2.Today, the detenu Lokeshwaran has been secured and produced by the respondent Police. The petitioner/father of the detenu and the 4^th respondent are also present before us.

¶15

3.On enquiry, the detenu has told us that he fell in love with the 4^th respondent herein who is older to him and got married to her also. Earlier, they were taken to custody by the respondent police and both were separated and since the detenu was only 17 years of age, he was handed over to his parents. Again, he left his parental home to be in the company of the 4^th respondent herein. The 4^th respondent has also been produced before this Court today by the respondent police from Tiruvannamalai, where they were living together. The detenu has further told us that he would like to go along with his parents who are present before this Court. His submission is recorded.

¶16

4.Since the detenu is a juvenile, aged about 17 years, the respondent police is hereby directed to produce the detenu Lokeshwaran before the Child Welfare Committee, Tiruvannamalai District, for counselling and for passing appropriate orders. The 4^th respondent shall be left at her place wherever she is from.

¶17

5.The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with the above direction and observation.

¶18

Sd/Asst.Registrar (AS) Dated:4.8.2014 /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar AP

¶19

¶20

1.the Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District.

¶21

2.The Inspector of Police Pachal Police Station Thiruvannamalai District.

¶22

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

¶23

3.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶24

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶25

Copy to:-

¶26

The Child Welfare Officer Chold Welfare Committee Tiruvannamalai District.

¶27

1 cc to Mr.S. Silambu Selvan, Advocate, SR. 34580
HCP.No.1911/2014
NM (CO)
kk4/8

¶28

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

Murugesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar @ Magilamannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ellamaal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Pradeep Vs R.Kariyappa

Govindaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Prabu Vs the State Rep by