Disposed

K.Lalitha v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2016HCP/3195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petitioner filed this Habeas Corpus petition seeking production and release of her 16-year-old minor granddaughter. The petitioner alleged inaction by police after a 'Girl Missing' case was registered. The Court noted the detenue was produced and directed her appearance before the District Child Welfare Committee for welfare considerations before closing the petition.какие

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce the detenue before the District Child Welfare Committee, Tiruvallur to pass appropriate orders regarding her safety and welfare.

K.Lalitha Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.03.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P. No. 3195 of 2015
K. Lalitha ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by the
The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur, Thiruvallur District. ..Respondent
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habaes Corpus directing the
respondent to produce the petitioner's granddaughter namely,
Sankavi, aged 16 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at
liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.L. Vinoth Kumar
For Respondent :: Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R

¶8

(Order of the Court was made by M. JAICHANDREN,J.)

¶9

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the maternal grandmother of the detenue, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce her minor granddaughter, namely, Sankavi, aged 16 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.

¶10

Due to certain disputes that had arisen in the family, the detenue had gone away from her home. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a complaint before the respondent. The said complaint had been registered, in Crime No. 478 of 2015, as a “ Girl Missing” case. Thereafter, as no effective steps had

¶11

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

¶12

been taken, by the respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.

¶13

Today, when the matter has been listed for hearing, the respondent Police has produced the detenue before this Court. As the detenue is a minor, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent Police to produce the detenue, before the District Child Welfare Committee, Tiruvallur and the District Child Welfare Committee, Tiruvallur, shall pass appropriate orders, considering the safety and the welfare of the minor detenue, as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

With the above directions, the Habeas Corpus
Petition is closed.
nv Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur, Thiruvallur District.
2. The Child Welfare Officer,
The District Child Welfare Committee,
Tiruvallur.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.L. Vinoth Kumar, Advocate Sr 16852
KR/16/3/16
H.C.P. No. 3195 of 2015

¶15

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

K.Lalitha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lalitha v. the Inspector 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

N.Surendran Vs State Rep. by

Ashok Kumar Vs the Secretary to Government

T.Karthick Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thenmozhi Vs the Superintendent of Police

T.Ellammal Vs State Rep. by

Mari@ Marimuthu Vs State Rep by