Disposed

G.Elumalai, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Jul 2019HCP/1647/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition sought production of a missing 14-year-old girl. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation, secure the detainee and respondent, and produce them before a magistrate upon location.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Superintendent of Police to supervise investigation and secure the detainee and respondent for production.

G.Elumalai, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 19..07..2019 CORAM

¶3

The Honourable Mr Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Honourable Mr Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶4

Habeas Corpus Petition No.1647 of 2018

G.Elumalai

... Petitioner

-Versus-

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Polur 606 803. 2.L.Raju @ Anandan

¶9

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st respondent police to produce the body of the person G.Rajeshwari, aged about 14 years (Minor) before this court and hand over the custody of the minor the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj for R1 ORDER

¶10

[Order of the court was made by Justice M.M.SUNDRESH]

¶11

The petitioner is the father of the detenue - E.Rajeshwari, aged about 14 years. He has come up with this petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent for production of his missing minor daughter.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

It is a case of elopement of 14 years old girl with the 2nd respondent. The detenue and the 2nd respondent are yet to be traced and produced.

¶14

Considering the seriousness of the issue involved, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, to minor and supervise the investigation and take appropriate steps to secure the detenue and the 2nd respondent. It is needless to state that as and when the detenue and the 2nd

¶15

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

¶16

respondent are traced, they should be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This Habeas Corpus Petition is closed accordingly with the above directions.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Polur 606 803,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.Malaichamy, Advocate sr.61615
H.C.P.No.1647 of 2018
rsv(co)
nr 24/09/2019

¶18

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

G.Elumalai, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Elumalai, v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

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

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