Dismissed

R.Jayalakshmi, Aged 35 Years v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC7 Dec 2017HCP/2649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking production of her son's body. Finding the son deceased and police negligence alleged but further immediate action unviable within the writ, the court granted liberty to file a fresh action for compensation and directed police to furnish inquest and postmortem reports within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to pursue compensation; respondents directed to furnish postmortem and inquest reports within 10 days.

R.Jayalakshmi, Aged 35 Years Vs the Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.2649 of 2016

¶7

Ms.R.Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
P.3 Vysarpadi Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the second
respondent to produce the petitioner's son named R.Vignesh, aged
about 18 years before this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Uma
For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.]

¶9

Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has filed a status report dated 06.12.2017.

¶10

1.1. As per the status report, an unidentified dead body was found lying on the Madhavaram – Tambaram Bypass Service Road, on 10.10.2016.

¶11

1.2. Based on the complaint received in that behalf from one Mr.Balaji, a case was registered in M.3 Puzhal Police Station.

¶12

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

¶13

1.3. This case was numbered Crime No1272 of 2016. The investigation was taken up and inquest was carried out.

¶14

1.4 The status report also shows that after postmortem was also being carried out.

¶15

It appears that the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenue, was unaware of all these till the police on 01.12.2017 showed her a photo of the dead body. Which had features resembling her son.

¶16

2.1. The petitioner evidently, has identified her son from the photo of the dead body found by the police.

¶17

It appears that the police had recorded the statement of other relatives of the detenue. It also appears that the dead body carries a tatto “RJ” on his left shoulder, which appears to be that of the deceased.

¶18

In these circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner had filed a missing complaint as far back as on 14.10.2016. It is further submitted that the police has been callous in not carrying out the enquiries as mandated by law. In this behalf, learned counsel has placed emphasis on the fact that even according to the status report, the dead body was found by the Puzhal Police on 10.10.2016 and, though, the complaint regarding the detenue had been lodged a day earlier, i.e., 09.10.2017, no steps were taken to inform the petitioner till as late as 01.12.2017.

¶19

In these circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is entitled to take recourse to other remedies to agitate her rights with regard to the negligence and callousness displayed by the state authorities.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records, keeping in mind the nature of instant petition, no further orders can be passed. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to agitate her rights with regard to her grievance qua the State by way of a fresh action,

¶21

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

¶22

Before we conclude, we direct the respondents to render all assistance to the petitioner to get her compensation, as according to them, the detenue died in a hit and run episode.

¶23

The petition is disposed of, accordingly, in the aforementioned terms. The respondent shall furnish a copy of the postmortem certificate and inquest report to the petitioner, not later than 10 days from today.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶25

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vrc
To:
1. The Commissioner of Police,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
P.3 Vysarpadi Police Station,
Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Madras.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, High Court, Madras

¶26

+1cc to Ms.P.Uma, Advocate, S.R.No.87107

¶27

H.C.P.No.2649 of 2016 KK(CO) CS/17/01/18

¶28

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

R.Jayalakshmi, Aged 35 Years v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jayalakshmi, Aged 35 Years v. the Commissioner 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

Chandrakumari, Aged 24 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

Jeyammal, 53 Yrs, Vs the Secretary to Government

Christry John @ Christy, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Tmt.M.Priya, Vs The Principal District Judge

S.Murugan Vs M.Ghazala Nasreen

M.Mathi, 23 Yrs, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police