Dismissed

P. Murugesh, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Mar 2017HCP/1220/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition regarding the disappearance of a 19-year-old engineering student, the Court found no evidence of illegal detention. The student left college amidst a quarrel with his girlfriend. The Court closed the petition, directing the police to continue their investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus petition was closed with a direction to the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation.

P. Murugesh, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.03.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶7

H.C.P No.1220 of 2016

¶8

P.Murugesh .. Petitioner/Father of the detenue

¶9

Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
2.The Inspector of police,
Erode Taluk Police station,
Erode District.
3.Dr.A.M.J.Md.ZubairRahman .. Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per under of this Hon'ble Court dated
23/09/2016 in Crl.M.P. 9902/16 in HCP. 1220/16)

¶10

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's son namely M.Anand, aged about 19 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : V.Paarthiban For Respondent : V.M.R.Rajentren, 1 & 2 Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,)

¶12

The petitioner is the father of one Mr.Anand, aged 19 years. Mr.Anand was studying II year Bachelor of Engineering course at Al Ameen Engineering College, Nanjai Uthukuli, Erode. On 21.04.2016, as usual, around 8.30 am, he went to the college. Thereafter, he did not return. From that date onwards, he has

¶13

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

¶14

been found missing. In this regard, the petitioner has made a complaint to the respondent Police on 23.04.2016 and on the basis of the same, a case in Crime No.190/2016 has been registered. Despite the same, Mr.Anand/detenu has not been secured by the Police is the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶15

2.The second respondent has filed a status report wherein, he has stated that the investigation has revealed that Mr.Anand/detenu had a love affair with one Ms.Raffia Burgana who was also then studying in the same college. The investigation has further revealed that on 21.04.2016, there was a quarrel between the detenu and Ms.Raffia Burgana because Ms.Raffia Burgana found from the cell phone of the detenue that he had spoken to some other girl for a long time through whatsapp. Ms.Raffia Burgana questioned him. There arose a quarrel. In that quarrel, around 12.30 pm, in the college premises, the detenu thrown away the cellphone and left the college. The Investigating Officer has examined many fellow students of the college and others also. He has also further narrated about the steps taken all along, in the matter of investigation, to secure the detenu. We are satisfied with the investigation done in this case. The Inspector of Police would state that he would continue the investigation and found out the detenu. The said statement is also recorded.

¶16

3.From the above narration of facts, it is crystal clear that there appears to have been no illegal detention of the detenu. Out of failure of love and out of quarrel with his girl friend Ms.Raffia Burgana, the detenu has left the college. The respondent Police has taken all his efforts to find him out.

¶17

4.In view of the same, we are inclined to close the Habeas Corpus Petition with a direction to the respondent Police to continue the investigation. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with a direction to the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation.

¶18

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

jbm

¶21

¶22

1.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.

¶23

2.The Inspector of police, Erode Taluk Police station, Erode District.

¶24

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶25

+1cc to M/S. I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate Sr. 16221
H.C.P.No.1220 of 2016
NRI(CO)
VR(07/04/2017)

¶26

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

P. Murugesh, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Murugesh, 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

State Represented by Vs Prabakaran

Shyna @ Shyni @ Shoba @ Rajee Vs the Secretary

Sudhakar Vs State by

Sakthi Ramakrishnan, M/a 34YRS Vs State Rep. by

R.Annai Mary, Aged 43 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Vasi @ Vasikaran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu