Dismissed

P.Nandini, Aged 35 Years v. the State Rep by

Madras HC19 Jul 2019HCP/1237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought to produce a missing minor girl. The Court observed that while police efforts were inadequate, none could be attributed to the investigating officer's fault. Consequently, an order for transfer of investigation or production was not granted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to monitor investigation and secure detenue and 3rd respondent; liberty to petition for transfer if no progress.

P.Nandini, Aged 35 Years Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.07.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.1237 of 2018

¶6

P.Nandini .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The State Rep.by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sankari, Salem District.

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem. 3.G.Kannan

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the body of the minor girl by name P.Nithya, aged about 17 years, D/o.Periyasamy, before this Court and further may handover the minor girl to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner .. Mr.C.Kulanthaivel For R1 & R2 .. Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

(Order of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenue – P.Nithya, aged about 17 years. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for production of the missing detenu.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the minor girl eloped with the 3^rd respondent. The efforts made till now did not produce any desired result in tracing the detenue and the 3rd respondent. He further submitted that the 1st respondent has taken extraordinary efforts to trace the detenue and the 3rd respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parents of the 3^rd respondent have not been enquired till date.

¶16

We find from the status report filed by the 1^st respondent that the parents of the 3rd respondent have been duly examined by the police. Though the minor girl is missing for nearly one month, she is yet to be traced.

¶17

Though we do not find any mistake on the part of the investigating officer, the fact remains that the detenue is yet to be traced. In such view of the matter, we direct the 2nd respondent to monitor the investigation and take suitable steps to secure the detenue and the 3rd respondent and as and when they are traced, they should be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the 2nd respondent to furnish information, if any available, with her. The petitioner is also given liberty to approach this court, if no further progress is made, for transfer of investigation.

¶18

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed with the above observations.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

kmk/smv To

¶23

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶24

All Women Police Station, Sankari,

¶25

Salem District.

¶26

2.The Superintendent of Police,

¶27

Salem District, Salem.

¶28

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.C.Kulanthaivel , Advocate SR.No. 61818

¶30

H.C.P.No. 1237 of 2018

¶31

A.SK(16/09/2019)

¶32

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

P.Nandini, Aged 35 Years v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nandini, Aged 35 Years 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

Shankar, Aged 30 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Maria Solomi, Aged 32 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

E.Visalakshi, Aged 42 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.Vijayakumar Vs Karunanidhi

Anthony, M/A.29 Years Vs State Rep by

G.Elumalai, Vs State of Tamil Nadu