Dismissed

A.Rajasekaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Mar 2019HCP/392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father to secure the release and production of his missing 16-year-old daughter, the detenue appeared before the court and expressed willingness to return home. The impugned order regarding her detention was treated as resolved upon her consent.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed as the detenue was secured and willing to go with her parents; no further orders made.

A.Rajasekaran Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.392 of 2019

¶6

A.Rajasekaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police
Sankari Main Road
Nethimedu
Salem
Salem District – 636 002.
2.The Inspector of Police
Thammampatti Police Station
SH 30, Thammampatti
Salem District – 636 113.
3.Dhanushvelan
4.Saravanan
5.Kanagalakshmi .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the second respondent to secure the petitioner's minor daughter Roopa, aged 16 years (DOB: 04.11.2002) and produce before this Court and hand over the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.L.Munisamy

¶9

For Respondent .. Ms.V.Saratha Devi Government Advocate (Crl Side) [for R1 & R2]

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)

¶13

The petitioner is the father of the detenue, namely Roopa, aged 16 years (DOB : 04.11.2002) and she is his second daughter, who is studying I year diploma in ECE at Imayam Polytechnic College, Kannanur Village, Duraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, and she was missing from 28.01.2019 and in this regard, the mother of the detenue had lodged a complaint before the second respondent-police, based on which, a case in Crime No.15/2019 came to registered for “girl missing”.

¶14

Though the matter is not listed today, at the request made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the matter was listed today.

¶15

The detenue is present before this Court today and so also her parents. The detenue, on enquiry, would aver that since she was not performing well in the Diploma course in which she is at present pursuing, she has been castigated by her parents and unable to bear with it, she went to her maternal grandparent's house and now she is willing to go back to her parental house. The parents who are also present, assured to take care of her daughter.

¶16

In the light of the fact that the detenue has been secured and she has expressed her willingness to go with her parents, nothing remains for further adjudication in this Habeas Corpus Petition and hence, it is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To:

¶22

1.The Superintendent of Police Sankari Main Road Nethimedu

¶23

Salem

¶24

Salem District – 636 002.

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Inspector of Police Thammampatti Police Station SH 30, Thammampatti Salem District – 636 113.

¶27

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

H.C.P.No.392 of 2019

¶29

gj II[co]
srg 30/04/2019

¶30

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

A.Rajasekaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajasekaran 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

P.Velan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Kalpana, 26 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

V.Siva Vs State Rep by

Pavadai Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Pushpa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its