Dismissed

K.Velsamy v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Nov 2018HCP(MD)/1305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for habeas corpus against police for non-production of petitioner's daughter, alleged missing since 23.08.2018. Police produced the detenue who stated she left home voluntarily to marry third respondent. Court held she was not in illegal custody and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed as detenue stated she left home voluntarily to marry third respondent and is not in illegal custody.

K.Velsamy Vs the Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

K.Velsamy

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2018

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI H.C.P(MD)No.1305 of 2018

¶5

: Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Mudhukulathor Police Station, Mudhukulathor, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

Dinesh Babu

¶10

Shanmugam

¶11

5.Selvi : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter namely Susimala, D/o.K.Velsamy, aged about 20 years old before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1 & R.2

¶14

Service awaited for R.3 No appearance for R.4 & R.5

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J. )

¶17

The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenue, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to produce the person or body of the detenue, namely, Susimala, aged about 20 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶18

According to the petitioner, his daughter was missing from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23.08.2018 onwards. In this regard, the petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent on 23.08.2018, however, no effective steps have been taken by the respondents police to trace out the

¶19

¶20

detenue and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration, the second respondent police produced the detenue. When we enquired the detenue, she has stated that she is aged about 20 years and since she fell in love with the third respondent, on her own volition, she went out of the home along with the third respondent and married him at a Temple. She has further stated that she is not in illegal custody.

¶22

In view of the above, since the detenue is not in illegal custody, in our considered view, nothing survives for adjudication in this Habeas Corpus Petition and the same is accordingly, closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Mudhukulathor Police Station, Mudhukulathor,

¶30

Ramanathapuram District.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan, Advocate Sr.No.95879 +1cc to B.Santhanam Rajesh,Advocate Sr.No.96196

¶32

GK/SSL

¶33

KM/SV/SAR2/12.12.2018/2P/5C

¶34

ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)NO. 1305 OF 2018 16.11.2018

¶35

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

K.Velsamy v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Velsamy 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

R.Ramar, S/O.Ramalingam, Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

P.Rajendran Vs the District Collector

Sakthivel, Vs the District Collector

Ajithkumar, Vs the Principal Secretary to

Mohammed Rafeek, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Amutha & Co., Vs the Authorized Officer