Dismissed

Ponnusamy v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Jul 2019HCP/423/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking the production of his 23-year-old daughter, the Court held that no illegal detention existed as the detainee was stated to have eloped and could not be traced for two years. The petition was closed, but the police were directed to continue tracing efforts.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is closed; the Court directed the respondents to continue attempting to trace the detenue.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2019

¶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.423 of 2018

¶6

Ponnusamy .. Petitioner
Vs.

¶7

The Superintendent of Police,
Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Attaiyampatti Police Station,
Attaiyampatti,
Salem District. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue by name Miss.Meena, aged 23 years who is the daughter of the Ponnusamy before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Gunalan For Respondents.. Mr.R.Prathap kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶12

The petitioner is the father of the detenue – Miss Meena, aged 23 years, seeking a direction to the respondents for production of the missing detenue, the petitioner is before this court with this petition.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions submitted that for the past two years, the detenue could not be traced. She is stated to be eloped with a neighbour by name Raja, who is also a close relative of the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

In such view of the matter, we do not find any illegal detention involved and thus, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. However, the attempt to trace the detenue shall go on and as and when she is traced, she should be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmk/msrm
To,
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Attaiyampatti Police Station,
Attaiyampatti,
Salem District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Gunalan, Advocate sr.59355
H.C.P.No.423 of 2018
nr(co)
nr 22/08/2019

¶17

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

Ponnusamy v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnusamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sangeetha Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Govindasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Muthaiya,B.E., Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Murugan Vs the Superintendant of Police

Mr.C.Sundhar, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mrs. Vasantha Krishnaraj Vs Sri Pandey V.K.