Dismissed

P.Jesintha Shanthi, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/575/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CuA wife filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of her husband, who she claimed was illegally detained. The Court noted that the police recorded a signed statement from the missing husband during the petition's pendency. Finding no case of illegal detention, the Court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed due to the recording of a signed statement by the detenu, negating the claim of illegal detention.

P.Jesintha Shanthi, Vs the Superintenden… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.575 of 2017

P.Jesintha Shanthi

: Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambasamuthiram Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.Arokiya Lourdu Pappa, 4.Mariya Selvam, 5.Devadas, 6.Durai, 7.Arun,

¶13

8.Amali : Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus petition, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to produce the body of petitioner's husband namely A.Prince Moses, S/o Augustin Thangadurai, aged about 43 years and set him at liberty.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravind Raj For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

For R3 to R8 : No appearance

¶17

O R D E R ***********

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶19

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, claiming that her husband has been detained by the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted before us that earlier there was a similar allegation and the detenu filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21831 of 2016 and the matter was referred to the mediation and there was a settlement arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband is again missing and the police have recorded his statement on 19.05.2017, which is signed statement from a given address.

¶23

3.Since this statement having been recorded during the pendency of this Habeas Corpus Petition, we find that there is no case of illegal detention.

¶24

4.Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambasamuthiram Tirunelveli District.

¶31

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

¶32

+One cc to Mr.R.Aravind Raj, Advocate, SR.No.59937 Is/sj RL/5C/2P/KP/SAR1/20/6/2017 H.C.P(MD)No.575 of 2017

¶33

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

¶34

13.06.2017

P.Jesintha Shanthi, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jesintha Shanthi, 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

The Executive Officer Vs P.Thangarasu

Hotel Agasthiya Private Vs the Principal District Court

The Secretary to Government Vs P.S. Saravanakumar

S.Panjavarnam Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Maragatha Valli, Vs the Joint Director of

S.Chellapandi, Vs the Superintendent of Police