Disposed

Thiyagu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Aug 2014HCP(MD)/754/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition regarding the detention of the petitioner's daughter, Srividya, with a relative under 21, the Madurai Bench referred the matter to mediation. A settlement was reached where the petitioner agreed to withdraw his criminal complaint and accepted guardianship.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of in consequence of a settlement agreement wherein the remedy of production was rendered unnecessary by the parties' mutual resolution.

Thiyagu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2014

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.754 of 2014

¶7

Thiyagu, aged 48 years, S/o.Late. Ayyasamy, 4/91, Mela Theru, Solamadevi, Navalpat, Trichy District. . . Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Navalpat Police Station, Trichy District.

3.Sarath

4.Thamarai

5.Krishnamoorthy,

6.Shanmugam

7.Ananad

8.Vasantha . . Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus by directing the second respondent to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter namely Srividya, aged 19 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶19

For Respondents:Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran for R1 & R2

¶20

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

Mr.S.Vinayak for Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R3 to R8

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J] On 15.07.2014, we passed the following order;-

¶24

"Srividya, detenue is present. When we enquired, she admitted that Sarathkumar, respondent No.3, is a close relative and the proximity is that, he would be her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cousin (bghpag;gh kfd;). Date of birth of Sarathkumar is 15.02.1994. Marriageable age, as per Section 5(iiii) of

¶25

¶26

the Hindu Marriage Act, prescribed for the birdegroom is 21 years. Whereas, as per the statement of Srividya, the age of Sarathkumar, respondent No.3, is less than 21 years. Statement of Srividya is recorded.

¶27

Srividya, denies detention by respondent No.3, In view of the peculiarity of this case, we deem it fit to refer this matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

¶28

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor suggested that Mr.K.Samidurai, Advocate, can be nominated as Mediator. Hence, Registry is directed to get the consent of Mr.K.Samidurai, learned Advocate and post the case before the Mediation Centre on 25.07.20114. Mediator shall submit a report.

¶29

The matter has been referred before the Mediation presided over by Mr.K.Samidurai, Advocate, Madurai. Reverting back, the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, has submitted a Mediation Report of Mr.K.Samidurai, dated 30.07.2014. The Mediation Report reads as under;-

¶30

" Settlement Agreement

¶31

This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered on 30.07.2014 between Petitioner and Respondent/De-facto Complainant.

¶32

WHEREAS

¶33

Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and HCP (MD) No.754/14 filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

The matter was referred to Mediation/Conciliation vide an order dated 15.07.2014 and passed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR AND The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.S.RAVI

¶35

The parties agreed that M/s.K.SAMIDURAI would act as their Counciliator/Mediator.

¶36

Two meetings were held during the process of

¶37

conciliation/Mediation on 25.07.2014 and 30.07.2014 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above mentioned disputes and differences.

¶38

The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of Mediator/Conciliator.

¶39

The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:

¶40

The detenue Srividya agreed to continue under the Guardianship of her father, Mr.Thiyagu, who is the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner herein. The petitioner agrees to take care of the detenue regrading her higher studies, namely B.E

¶41

(Printing) at Coimbatore by staying in hostel at

¶42

¶43

Coimbatore. He will also take care of her medical expenses and improve her health. On completion of her studies she will be at liberty to take decisions on her future family life.

¶44

It is further agreed that since the detenue went with the Respondents on her own will and accord, the Petitioner agreed to withdraw the Criminal Complaint filed by him before Navalpatti Police Station in Crime No.187/2014 under Section 363 I.P.C. and agrees not to take any further action against the respondents. I will also not give any life threat on concern in continuation of this issue. Till further orders of the Court the detenue is willing to stay at Sengalsulai, Panchayat Presideint's House.

¶45

The Petitioner is fully responsible for the life and liberty of the detenue from today.

¶46

The Respondents shall return all the belongings of the detenue including her Certificates.

¶47

By signing this Agreement the parties hereto stated that they may have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to HCP(MD).No.754/2014 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.

¶48

Parties signature:

¶49

Counsels signature: Respondents 3 to 8 signature

¶50

MEDIATOR'S SIGNATURE "

¶51

Both Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr.S.Vinayak, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for respondents 3 to 8 fairly submitted that Mr.K.Samidurai, has done a wonderful job in resolving the dispute between the parties. The work done by the Mediator is appreciated and placed on record. Both, the learned counsel also submitted that the settlement agreement entered between the parties can be placed on record and also be treated as part of record and the present Habeas Corpus Petition can be disposed of accordingly.

¶52

We have perused the Mediation Report. Parties have signed and the learned counsel on both sides have also affixed their signatures. In the light of the consenus and submission made by both the parties, the agreement dated 30.07.2014, is directed to be treated as part of this order. The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

Assistant Registrar(W)

¶55

/True Copy/

¶56

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

¶57

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶58

¶59

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Navalpat Police Station, Trichy District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate, SR.No.42925 jikr RL/5 c- 13/8/2014 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD) No.754 of 2014 01.08.2014

¶60

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

Thiyagu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiyagu 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

Karthikeyan Vs the Inspector General of

Esakki Ammal Vs the Secretary to Government

Muthulakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Selvam @ Selvaraj Vs the Principal Secretary to

M.Muthu Krishnan Vs the Secretary of Government

Ganesan Vs the Principal Secretary to