Disposed

R.KALIAMMAL,69 Yrs, v. State Rep by

Madras HC23 Jul 2019HCP/41/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226, the High Court addressed a request to produce the petitioner's missing daughter as a detenue. The Court directed the police to continue the investigation and trace the individual, ultimately disposing of the petition on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to proceed with investigation, trace the detenue, and produce her before the jurisdictional Magistrate upon being secured.

R.KALIAMMAL,69 Yrs, Vs State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.07.2019

¶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.41 of 2018

¶6

R.Kaliammal .. Petitioner
Vs
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Nagarasampatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the first and second respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter Chandra, aged about 40 years at the time of occurrence before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For Respondents .. Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter Chandra, aged about 40 years at the time of occurrence, before this Court and set her at liberty, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.

¶11

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that change of vakalat has been filed and therefore there is no instruction.

¶12

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

¶13

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, based upon the status report, submitted that the investigation is still going on. The detenue is stated to be missing from the year 2014 onwards. The investigation would reveal that the detenue is of loose morals. She is also 37 years of age at that point of time. Though we are not concerned with the character of the detenue, we are satisfied with the investigation made so far.

¶14

4.Thus, we direct the first respondent to proceed with the investigation and trace the detenue. As and when the detenue is secured, she should be produced before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶15

5.Under those circumstances, we are not inclined to keep this habeas corpus petition pending any longer and the same stands disposed of with the abovesaid observation.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Nagarasampatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶17

H.C.P.No.41 of 2018

¶18

PP(CO) GMY(26/08/2019)

¶19

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

R.KALIAMMAL,69 Yrs, v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.KALIAMMAL,69 Yrs, v. State Rep by

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

Manohari, Aged 62 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Karikalan @ Ashok Vs the State Rep by Its

Viji Vs State Rep by Its

Mohammed Rikas @ Rikaz Vs the Additional Director General of Police

Mahendiran Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanthi, Aged 42 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police