Disposed

V.Mekala Devi, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Jan 2018HCP/2003/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought production of her missing husband. The High Court noted the underlying matrimonial discord, misappropriation charges against the detenue, and that the petitioner no longer wished to press the matter after the State filed a status report. The petition was closed with directions for the State to continue its investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed with a direction that the State will continue to pursue the investigation in Crime No.258 of 2015.

V.Mekala Devi, Vs the State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.01.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.2003 of 2017

¶6

V.Mekala Devi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
D1 Chenglepet Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the
respondent police to trace out and produce the petitioner's
husband namely, Vellaipuerumal, aged about 58 years, before this
Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

- - For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶8

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

¶9

On the last date of hearing, we had made the following observations in the matter :

¶10

“1. Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed Status Report dated 22.11.2017.

¶11

The status report shows that the detenu and the petitioner, who is his wife, have had matrimonial discord. Concededly, the detenu left the petitioner, way back in 2009.

¶12

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

¶13

2.1. The petitioner, however, filed a complaint about the detenu, having gone missing with the police, only on 17.05.2013.

¶14

Furthermore, the police seems to have made efforts, thereafter, to locate the detenue, but, (to) no avail.

¶15

Paragraph-12 of the status report states that the detenu did not report for duty to the Organisation, in which he was employed i.e., Highways Department, Chenglepet, as he had misappropriated Government property, worth Rs.1,37,033/- (Rupees one lakh thirty seven thousand and thirty three only). The detenue, has thus, been missing, since, 10.09.2009.

¶16

In these circumstances, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor will gather further information as to whether or not the departmental enquiry was commenced against the detenu and whether or not it reached culmination.

¶17

Fresh status report will be filed before the next date of hearing.

¶18

Re-notify the matter on 05.01.2018.”

¶19

Pursuant to the aforesaid observations, the official respondents have filed a status report dated 03.01.2018. The said report has affirmed the fact that the detenue has not reported for duty, since 10.09.2009.

¶20

To be noted, as observed in our order dated 24.11.2017, the detenue was employed with the Highways Department, Chengalpet.

¶21

3.1. Furthermore, the status report also alludes to the fact that a proceeding has been initiated in respect of alleged misappropriation of government property by the detenue.

¶22

3.2. This aspect has also been noticed by us in our proceedings dated 24.11.2017.

¶23

A copy of the proceedings (Tamil version) of the Highways Department, dated 27.12.2017, has also been placed before us by Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The proceedings show that the detenue was suspended from service on 27.06.2013, inter alia, for remaining absent unauthorisedly.

¶24

4.1. The instant petition, as candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was initiated only to have the State place on record the fact that the detenue has been missing for a period of more than seven (7) years, so that, the petitioner could secure the benefits, that according to her, were due to the detenue.

¶25

4.2. Since, the status report has been filed, where this

¶26

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

¶27

aspect alluded to by the State, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he has instructions to convey to the Court that the petitioner does not wish to press the matter any further.

¶28

Accordingly, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is closed, with a direction that the State will continue to pursue the investigation in Crime No.258 of 2015, as mandated by law. To be noted, the said case was registered based on the complaint of the petitioner that the detenue had gone missing from 10.09.2009.

¶29

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
gg
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
D1 Chenglepet Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
+1CC to Mr.P.Chandrasekar (SR.No.1259)
H.C.P.No.2003 of 2017
PVS (CO)
ah (03/02/2018)

¶30

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

V.Mekala Devi, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mekala Devi, v. the State Rep. by

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

T.Ramesh, Vs J.Jayakrishnan

T.Uma, F/47 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Parimala, F/A-60 Years Vs the Secretary to Government

Velu, M/A.33 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Esaivani, 35 Yrs, Vs Secretary

Tmt.Neelavathi, F/a 38 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu