Disposed

R.Ponnammal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2016HCP(MD)/1105/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ under Article 226 for habeas corpus of her minor daughter, alleged kidnapped. Daughter appeared, stated compulsion for marriage with third respondent. Case altered under POCSO; third respondent arrested. Daughter, now 18, set at liberty to join mother; investigation to continue.

What did the court decide?

Detenu set at liberty to go with petitioner; investigation to continue.

R.Ponnammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1105 of 2016

R.Ponnammal

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District,

¶11

Sivagangai.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.Muthu : Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu or her corpus, namely, Priya, D/o.Ravi, aged about 17 years and 10 months before this Court and handed over her custody to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sankara Narayanan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

**********

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J. )

¶19

The petitioner is the mother of one Ms.Priya, D/o.Ravi, whose date of birth is 03.10.1998. According to the petitioner, Ms.Priya has been found missing from 05.08.2016 onwards. In this regard, a case has been registered in Crime No.68 of 2016 on the file of the second respondent. The allegation is that the third respondent had kidnapped Ms.Priya.

¶20

Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner made appearance. The second respondent produced Ms.Priya. When we enquired, Ms.Priya told us that since her parents compelled her for marriage, she went out of her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parental home along with the third respondent and lived with him in Udumalaipettai.

¶21

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the case has been altered into one under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the third respondent has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶23

The detenu told us that she is willing to go back with her mother, viz., the petitioner herein. The petitioner is also willing to take her back. Since the detenu is aged 18 years, she is set at liberty. However, the second respondent shall go ahead with the investigation.

¶24

The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶30

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

Order made in H.C.P.(MD) No.1105 of 2016 Dated: 20.10.2016

¶32

SML

¶33

ANR/SK-SKN/03.11.2016/2P/4C

¶34

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

R.Ponnammal, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ponnammal, 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

Kirubanandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Shaik @ Shaik Maracaiyar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Armaas, S/O Ansar Ali, Vs the Inspector of Police

Thangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Velmurugan Vs the Superintendent of Police