Disposed

S.Ramachandran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2017HCP(MD)/150/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed under Article 226 for habeas corpus regarding his missing 21-year-old daughter. On appearance, the detainee stated she left voluntarily due to a quarrel and expressed willingness to go with the father. Court closed the petition as nothing survived for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as the detenue was produced and expressed willingness to go with the petitioner.

S.Ramachandran Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶6

AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶7

H.C.P.[MD].No.150 of 2017

S.Ramachandran

: Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Pavoorchathiram, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's second daughter namely Kala, D/o.Ramachandran, aged 21 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[ Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.]

¶17

The petitioner is the father of the detenue, namely Kala, D/o.Ramachandran, aged about 21 years. He has filed the present petition stating that the detenue was found missing from 27.01.2017 onwards and in this regard, he has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 30.01.2017 and the same was registered in Crime No.38 of 2017 as "Woman missing". However, no effective steps were taken to trace out the detenue so far. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

¶18

Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, the second respondent produced the detenue before this Court. When we https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquired the detenue, she told us that she had some quarrel with her father and that is the reason why, she voluntarily left the

¶19

¶20

house and stayed in her friend's house. Now, she expressed her willingness to go along with the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the submission made by the detenue, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as nothing survives for adjudication. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

SML To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Pavoorchathiram, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

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

¶27

JAM/06.03.17 SKN-RSK/SAR 3/ 2P-4C

¶28

Order made in H.C.P.[MD].No.150 of 2017 Dated: 23.02.2017

¶29

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

S.Ramachandran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramachandran 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

K.Veeraperumal, Vs the Secretary

D.Durga Devi, Vs Union of India

S.Mahalingam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Tamilnadu

The Director General of Police Vs a.Arul Amalanathan

N.Kumaresan, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu