Dismissed

Mr.v.Moorthy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2019HCP/1009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought direction to produce the body of his minor daughter who had eloped. The Court observed that the detenue had attained majority and efforts to trace her were made. Consequently, the petition was closed, directing continuation of investigation and production of the detenue before a Magistrate if secured.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition stands closed; investigation to continue; detenue to be produced before Magistrate if secured.

Mr.v.Moorthy, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

H.C.P. No. 1009 of 2018
V.Moorthy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Erode District.
2.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Bhavani Sagar Police Station,
Bhavani, Erode District.
3.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
5.Karthik ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 1 to 3 to produce the body of minor girl M.Pradheepa, aged about 17 years, daughter of the petitioner and hand over to the petitioner.

¶7

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Dhanalakshmi
For Respondents Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
: Addl. Public Prosecutor for
R1 to R4

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶11

Seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenue M.Pradheepa, aged about 17 years, daughter of the petitioner and hand over her to the petitioner, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.

¶12

2.Petitioner is the father of the detenue, who was a minor at the time of missing. From the status report filed by the second respondent, it appears that the detenue has eloped with the fifth respondent and at this point of time, she has attained majority. The status report also revealed that substantial efforts have been made to trace the detenue.

¶13

3.Thus, in view of the above, particularly on perusal of the status report, we are not inclined to keep this habeas corpus petition pending any longer. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition stands closed. However, the investigation shall go on and as and when the detenue is secured, she should be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶14

s/dAssistant Registrar(CO)

¶15

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶16

mmi To 1.The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Erode District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Bhavani Sagar Police Station, Bhavani, Erode District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sathyamangalam, Erode District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sathyamangalam, Erode District. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No.1009 of 2018

¶17

KS(CO) SP(25/10/2019)

¶18

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

Mr.v.Moorthy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.v.Moorthy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Nallammal Vs the Inspector of Police

Dcb Bank Ltd, Vs P.Ponnian

D.Ramya, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Adaikalasamy Aided Vs The Commissioner

Parvathy, Aged 36 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Ramesh Khimsura, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu