Disposed

S.Ranganathan, M/a 47 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Dec 2017HCP/2048/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus regarding the petitioner's daughter, the petitioner's daughter appeared in court. The court held that as she is a major, she is free to make decisions regarding her life. No further orders were passed. The petitioner's son-in-law (Devadoss) was mentioned, while the detainee stated she wanted to remain with her husband (Johnson).

What did the court decide?

No further orders were passed. The petitioner's daughter was produced and consigned to record.

S.Ranganathan, M/a 47 Years, Vs the Inspector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 06.12.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶5

and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.2048 of 2017

¶7

S.Ranganathan .. Petitioner

¶8

The Inspector of Police (Crime Branch),

¶9

V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Rajamangalam, Villivakkam,

¶10

Chennai District-600 049 .. Respondents * * *

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent to cause production of the body or person of the petitioner's daughter, namely, R.Priyanka, aged about 18 years, before this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnan

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.)

¶15

The detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka has been produced in Court. 1.1. The detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka is the daughter of the petitioner.

¶16

We have interacted with the petitioner, his wife, as also the detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka.

¶17

detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka has entered into a matrimonial relationship with, one, Mr.Devadoss.

¶18

2.2. The detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka, says that she wants to remain in the company of her husband Mr.Johnson.

¶19

We may note that the petitioner required the detenue/ Ms.R.Priyanka, to return the original ration card.

¶20

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

¶21

3.1. The detenue/ Ms.R.Priyanka, has handed over the original ration card to the petitioner.

¶22

Given the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, no further orders can be passed in the captioned petition.

¶23

4.1. The detenue/Ms.R.Priyanka is a major now. Therefore, she is free to take decisions concerning her own life.

¶24

The petitioner is, accordingly, consigned to record.

¶25

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
gg
To
1. The Inspector of Police (Crime Branch),
V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station,
Rajamangalam, Villivakkam,
Chennai District-600 049
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Krishnan, Advocate sr.86614
H.C.P.No.2048 of 2017
nr 19/01/2018

¶26

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

S.Ranganathan, M/a 47 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ranganathan, M/a 47 Years, 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

Punitha, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Chandra (50) Vs the State Rep. by

D.Senthilkumar Vs The Chief Secretary to Govt.

Madhu, 48 Yrs, Vs the Principal Secretary to

D.Velu, Aged 50 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chandrakumari, Aged 24 Yrs Vs State Rep.by