Dismissed

Kanagalakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC30 Nov 2018HCP(MD)/1644/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition, Kanagalakshmi sought production and liberty of her son, Pandiaraj, alleging wrongful detention. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court produced the detenu. Finding he was admitted to a de-addiction centre by his wife with his consent due to alcoholism, the Court held he was not in illegal custody and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed for Habeas Corpus to produce the detenu and set him at liberty is dismissed.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1644 of 2018

¶7

Kanagalakshmi : Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Aruppukottai Virudhunagar District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Aruppukottai Virudhunagar District.

¶11

4.Muthubhavani

¶12

5.Peace Rescue Alcohol Drug Psychiatric No.421 and 427 Singapore Main Road Kallampatti, Alagarkovil Madurai. : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the person or body of petitioner's son, the detenu, namely, Pandiaraj, S/o.Late Solaichamy aged about 29 years, before this Court and set him liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan for R1 to R3 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

ORDER

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J ]

¶17

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produce her son, the detenu, namely, Solaichamy, aged 29 years, before this Court.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. In the affidavit, it is averred that the marriage between her son and the fourth respondent took place on 29.08.2014 and they have been blessed with two children and they have been living with the petitioner in her village. While so, since the detenu was found missing, the petitioner enquired the fourth respondent/daughter-inlaw about the whereabouts of her son. However, she stated that her son was admitted in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. Lateron, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent had admitted the detenu in the fifth respondent deaddiction centre. Since her son did not return, the petitioner has given a complaint to the respondent police on 08.11.2018. Since no effective steps were taken, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

¶20

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the detenu has been produced by the respondent police from the fifth respondent Centre. When we enquired the petitioner, she has stated that her son is not an alcoholic and he may be sent back to his native place However, the fourth respondent/wife has stated that her husband is a drunkard and since he was not in a position to carry on his avocation, he was admitted in the fifth respondent de-addiction Centre.

¶21

4 In view of the submission made by the fourth respondent, we are of the opinion that the detenu is not in the illegal custody. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(co)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(cs-III)

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Aruppukottai Virudhunagar District.

¶29

3.The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Aruppukottai

¶30

Virudhunagar District.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.1644 of 2018 30.11.2018

¶35

RR SPSKN SAR3 11.12.2018 3P 5C

¶36

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

Kanagalakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagalakshmi 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

Agni Knowledge Foundation Vs the Authorized Officer/

Amma Pillai, Vs the Tahsildar

Ramasamy, Vs the Tashildar

Mani @ Manimaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Then Rajan, Vs Sivakasi Municipality

Amutha Sweets Bakery and Vs the Registrar