Allowed

K.Priya v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Mar 2019HCP/200/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu labeled a 'Goonda', the High Court set aside the detention order. The Court held that the detaining authority derived subjective satisfaction without considering two ground cases, thereby vitiating the order and mandating the detenu's immediate release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 28.08.2018 was set aside, and the detenu Kitcha @ Krishnamurthy was set at liberty forthwith.

K.Priya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 26.03.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
HCP.No.200 of 2019
K.Priya .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Secretary to the Government
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City
Vepery,
Chennai-600 007. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the husband of the petitioner, Kitcha @ Krishnamurthy aged 32 years before this Honble Court, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty and to call for the records pertaining to the Memo No.771/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 28.08.2018 and set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu who, vide impugned Order

¶13

of Detention dated 28.08.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent by invoking

¶14

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as

¶15

' 'Goonda'' , came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among
other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following
cases:
Sl.No. Crime No. Section of law Date of
occurrence
1. Kayar P.S.Cr.No.109/2017 302 IPC 22.08.2017
2. J-11 Kannaki Nagar P.S 341, 294(b), 352, 06.05.2018
Cr.No.264/2018 392 r/w 397, 506
(ii) IPC
3. J-11 Kannaki Nagar P.S 341, 294(b), 352, 09.06.2018
Cr.No.382/2018 336, 427, 392
r/w 397, 506 (ii)
IPC
4. J-11 Kannaki Nagar P.S 294(b), 324, 307, 18.06.2018
Cr.No.412/2018 506 (ii) IPC

¶16

It is further alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenu has also involved in commission of two ground cases registered by J-11 Kannaki Nagar in Cr.Nos.437 of 2018 for the commission of offences under

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC in the very same police station and yet another Cr.No.506 of 2018 for the commission of offence under Section 399 IPC and the offences in the ground case said to have been committed on 18.06.2018 and 14.07.2018. The detenu and the

¶20

co-accused were arrested and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 14.07.2018 and were ordered to be in judicial custody till 24.07.2018 and the remand period was extended till 04.09.2018.

¶21

basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenu, who has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in four cases and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and

¶22

accordingly, clamped the impugned order of detention and challenging

¶23

the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu has

¶25

drawn attention of this Court to the inner page No.6 of the impugned detention order and would state that the Detaining Authority has derived at the subjective satisfaction that the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

public order and peace and relied upon five adverse cases, overlooking the fact that even as per the impugned order of detention, the detenu is also involved in two ground cases in Cr.Nos.437 and 506 of 2018 registered by J-11 Kannaki Nagar Police Station and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the Detaining Authority is vitiated and

¶29

hence prays for quashment of the impugned order.

¶30

Per contra , Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the 2^nd respondent / Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly clamped the order of detention and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶31

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and

¶32

also perused the entire materials placed before it.

¶33

It is relevant to extract particular portion of Paragraph No.3

¶34

of the impugned order of detention:

¶35

“ I am satisfied that Thiru.Kicha @ Krishnamurthy who is committing crimes has already came to adverse notice in five cases and in the ground case he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f)

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

¶38

of the Tamil nadu Act 14 of 1982.” As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶39

apart from involving in five adverse cases, the detenu has also involved himself in two ground cases (above cited) and however, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration only one ground case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-consideration of the involvement of the detenu in two ground cases would definitely vitiate the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority and hence on the sole ground, the impugned order of detention warrants interference.

¶40

8 . Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the

¶41

Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.771/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 28.08.2018 is set aside and the detenu

¶42

namely Kitcha @ Krishnamurthy aged 32 years, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention /

¶43

custody is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.

¶44

[M.S.N., J] [M.N.K., J] 26.03.2019 Internet : Yes/No Index :Yes/No sk

¶45

M.SATHYANARAYANAN.,J

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

¶48

AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J sk

¶49

¶50

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶51

2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
HCP.No.200 of 2019

¶52

26.03.2019

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Priya v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Priya v. the 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

Manikandan Vs State Represented by

M.Kalavathy Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Poonuthyammal Vs Dr. Niranjan Mardi IAS

Deepesh Makkatil @ Ranjith Vs the Secretary to the Government

Khushruba Vs the Secretary to Government

Khushruba Vs State of Tamil Nadu