Dismissed

Pankajam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Nov 2018HCP(MD)/1605/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interpreting a writ petition filed to produce detained individuals, the court noted that the respondents had already produced the detenues before the court. Upon verifying they left due to family disputes and were not in illegal custody, the court closed the petition without adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus petition is closed; parties directed to work out custody remedy before appropriate forum.

Pankajam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.THARANI H.C.P.(MD)No.1605 of 2018

Pankajam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayalumoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: The 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 detenue, Sunil Kumar, son of Krishnakutti, aged about 3 years and Girija wife of Sunil Kumar, daughter of Vijayan, aged about 33 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, APP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue, Sunil Kumar, aged about 3 years and Girija wife aged about 33 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶15

2.Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the detenues have been produced by the respondent / Police before this Court. When we enquired, they stated that due to some family dispute, they left the home and they further stated that they have not been kept under illegal custody by anybody.

¶16

3.In view of the production of the detenues before this Court, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus petition is closed. It is open to the parties to work out their remedy viz., custody of the child, before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(P AND A)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

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

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶22

¶23

¶24

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶25

Kanyakumari District.

¶26

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayalumoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

1 CC TO Mr.S.SIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96867.

¶28

¶29

DS SKN SAR3 17 12 2018 2P 4C

¶30

H.C.P.(MD)No.1605 of 2018

¶31

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

Pankajam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankajam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pl.Lakshmanan, S/O.Palaniyandi Vs the District Collector

X.Arockiamary, Vs the District Collector

E.Senthil Vs S.Sridhar

A.Banu, W/O.K.Alexis, Vs the District Collector

Manjula Vs the Commissioner

S. Shunmugavel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by