Disposed

P.Sudha v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Apr 2017HCP(MD)/301/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief order disposed of a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner for the production of her husband. The detenu was produced prior to the order, stated he wished to rejoin his wife, and the court directed the police to ensure his safety from family threats.

What did the court decide?

Production of the detenu guaranteed; police directed to watch for threats; petition disposed.

P.Sudha Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.301 of 2017

P.Sudha

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶12

Kaathar

¶13

Mariammal

¶14

Padmadevi ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband, namely, Pitchai Pandi, aged about 31 years, son of Kaathar before this Hon'ble Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan, Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1 & R.2

¶18

Mr.S.Ramachandra Pradeep for R.3 & R.4

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Pursuant to the orders passed by us on 18.04.2017, the detenu has been produced before this Court. He is willing to join the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner – his wife.

¶23

¶24

We have advised him extensively and also advised the

¶25

petitioner who is present along with two minor daughters.

¶26

We have informed the learned Counsel for the respondents 3

¶27

and 4 that they should not interfere with the family affairs of the petitioner and her husband, namely, Pitchai Pandi.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 assured this Court that he will advise the respondents 3 and 4.

¶29

The petitioner stated before us that the relatives of the fifth respondent are attempting to threaten the petitioner's husband.

¶30

6.. Therefore, the second respondent - Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District, is directed to have a discreet watch and in case, any complaint is brought forth by the petitioner, appropriate action may be initiated on the same.

¶31

Thus, we find that as of now, there is no illegal detention of the detenu and therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar ( C )

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

2.The Inspector of Police Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶39

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶40

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +2 ccS to Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Advocate, SR.No.53407 rsb

¶41

RL/6C/2P/MR/5.5.2017 H.C.P(MD)No.301 of 2017 21.04.2017

¶42

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

P.Sudha v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sudha 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

P. Raja Vs K. Venkateshan

The Director General of Vs a. Arul Amalanathan

V.Kaliappan, Vs S.Murugam

M. Kasimuthu Vs the Additional Director

R.Inbasekaran, Vs the Learned Principal District

P.Jeevanandam Vs the Superintendent of Police