Dismissed

R.Vigneshwaran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Aug 2014HCP/2021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 seeking production of M.R. Lakshmi, alleging love and preventing marriage. The Court found no prima facie case and rejected the petition for lack of locus standi, as the intent to marry alone does not justify invoking habeas corpus.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case and lacked locus standi.

R.Vigneshwaran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶7

HCP.No.2021/2014

¶8

R.Vigneshwaran .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Superintendent of Police
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police
AWPS, Hosur Police Station
Hosur. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing
the respondent to produce the aforesaid M.R.Lakshmi before this Court
and set M.R.Lakshmi, daughter of Ravi Shankar, residing at 39 II
Cross, Uma Shankar Nagar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, at her will,
at liberty for the ends of justice.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajendran For Respondents: Mr.M.Maharajan, A.P.P.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he was in love with the detenue and based on that, he has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition asking for her production.

¶13

We find that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus Petition for production of the detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court and a judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court. On facts we find that, the facts of those cases are different from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support

¶14

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

¶15

of this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he wanted to marry the detenue and that she has been prevented from meeting him. We do not entertain such requests, for the petitioner has not made out a locus standi.

¶16

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gms
To
1. Superintendent of Police
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police
AWPS, Hosur Police Station
Hosur.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
HCP No.2021/2014
ppa(co)
pmk.15.9.2014

¶18

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

R.Vigneshwaran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vigneshwaran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kumar @ Magilamannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Prabu Vs the State Rep by

M.Mahaboob John Vs the State Rep by Its