Dismissed

Arumugam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Aug 2014HCP/1931/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father of a major detenue to secure her release from alleged illegal custody. Court recorded the detenue's statement that she prefers to stay with specific relatives rather than her parents. Finding the petitioner absent, the court recorded the statement and closed the petition, setting the detenue at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed setting the detenue at liberty to be on her own.

Arumugam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶7

HCP.No.1931/2014

¶8

Arumugam ...Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Villupuram District. 3. Vetriselvan ...Respondents Prayer:Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent herein to produce the person of the detenue by name Gowthami D/o.Arumugam aged about 20 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Elavarasan For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

The petition has been filed by the father of the detenue to produce her daughter Gowthami, aged about 20 years, said to be in the illegal custody of the 3^rd respondent.

¶15

The detenue was produced before this Court yesterday by the respondent police. On enquiry she had stated that she is in Bangalore along with her relatives who were present before this Court. The detenue had further stated that she would like to go and live only with the company of her relatives namely Govindan and

¶16

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

¶17

Sundari in the following address, namely, P.Govindan, S/o.Ponnambal, Kuvadu Village, Kuvadu Post, Via Eraiyur, Ulundurpet Taluk (Mobile No.95240 10850) and she would not go to her parents.

¶18

Since the petitioner was not present yesterday, the matter was adjourned today.

¶19

Today, the detenue Gowthami is produced before this Court along with her relatives Govindan and Sundari. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner is present, the petitioner is not present.

¶20

According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the respondent police has informed the petitioner about the presence of the detenue and hearing of the case today. Despite that, the petitioner has not cared to come to Court. Therefore, this Court is left with no option excepting to recording the statement of the the detenue Gowthami, a major that she should be only in the company of her relatives who are present before this Court and not to go to parents house and closing this petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also would state that the petition may be closed after recording the statement of the detenue.

¶21

Accordingly, recording the statement of the detenue
Gowthami, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed setting the detenue
at liberty to be on her own. The presence of the Investigating
Officer is recorded.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar (LA)
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar.
tsi
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.

¶22

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

¶23

The Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station,

¶24

Villupuram District.

¶25

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶26

HCP.No.1931/2014

¶27

CTK [CO]
PSI 02/09/2014

¶28

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

Arumugam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam 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

Sumathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Malliga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Padmavathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sam Devadurai Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

D.Ravi Vs the State Rep by

R.Dinesh Kumar Vs the City Police Commissioner