Disposed

Thoulath Begam v. the Deputy General of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2019HCP/413/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an original jurisdiction petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner alleged illegal detention of her husband by private respondents. The court found the detenu was located at liberty and expressed willingness to return home. The petition was closed without further orders.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition closed; no further orders granted as the detenu is traced and willing to return.

Thoulath Begam Vs the Deputy General of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.413 of 2019

¶7

Thoulath Begam ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-
1. The Deputy General of Police,
DGP Office, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office Building,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Deputy Superintendent Office, Neyveli,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Madharakuppam Police Station,
Neyveli, Cuddalore District.
5. Ravi Vathyar @ Bhuvaneshwar,
6. Veerappan ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the 4^th respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Mr.Akbar Ali (Age 37), S/o.Abdul Muthalip, before this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthamizh Selvan For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by M.Sathyanarayanan, J.]

¶12

The petitioner is the husband of the detenu, namely Mr.Akbar Ali, aged about 37 years and according to her, her husband was

¶13

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

¶14

doing business in plastics and had business dealings with the respondents 5 and 6 and some misunderstanding arose between them and the fifth respondent started making unreasonable demand for return of the money and in the event of failure, theretened her husband with dire consequences. The husband of the petitioner also lodged a complaint to the police on 07.01.2019 and some time thereafter, he was found missing. The petitioner, in this regard, has lodged a complaint on the file of the fourth respondent police, based on which a case in Crime No.4/2019 was registered for “Man Missing”. The petitioner, alleging that her husband is under illegal custody at the hands of the respondents 5 and 6, came forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶15

The Habeas Corpus Petition was entertained on 26.02.2019 and notices were ordered. When the matter is called today, the detenu is produced and on enquiry, he would state that with regard to business dealings, there was some borrowals and on the account of the same, misunderstanding developed between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 and they asked him to part with some properties and fearing for his well being and safety, he left his home and would further add that, he is willing to return to his home.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 has specifically denied the allegation as to the alleged illegal detention of the detenu at their hands and would further add that the detenue has borrowed money and failed to repay the same and steps would be taken in accordance with law to recover the same from the detenu.

¶17

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would state that the detenu is indebted to very many persons and in order to evade repayment, he has absconded himself and very many complaints are received in that regard and those compliants are assigned CSRs and enquiry is on.

¶18

In the light of the fact that the detenu is traced and he has also expressed his willingness to join the petitioner/wife, no further orders are necessary. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

Jvm

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Deputy General of Police,
DGP Office, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office Building,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Deputy Superintendent Office, Neyveli,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Madharakuppam Police Station,
Neyveli, Cuddalore District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.C.Jeyachithra, Advocate, S.R.No.35166
+1 cc to M/s.A.Kanakavelappan, Advocate, S.R.No.35258
H.C.P.No.413 of 2019
KK(CO)
SSM(21/05/2019).

¶26

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

Thoulath Begam v. the Deputy General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thoulath Begam v. the Deputy General of Police

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

Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Vaithiyalingam, Vs Va.Pariyasamy

Raja Vs the State Rep by Its

Poovarasi Vs the Additional Director General of Prison

S.Lelin Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Chandrasekar Vs State by