Dismissed

P.Velan v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC15 Mar 2019HCP/465/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed an Article 226 writ petition for Habeas Corpus seeking release of his daughter, a 21-year-old married woman alleged to be illegally detained by her friend. The Court found the petitioner's only claim was that the wife was under the friend's illegal advice rather than detention. Being a major, the Court held she is entitled to decide her own future.

What did the court decide?

Petition for Habeas Corpus dismissed; petitioner at liberty to pursue further remedies before competent forums.

P.Velan Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

HCP.No.465 of 2019

¶7

P.Velan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Tambaram Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai-600 044.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Nilgris District,
Udagamandalam.
5.Maheswari .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 3^rd respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name Santhosh Sri, wife of Ashok, aged about 21 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj 1 & 4 Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶10

The petitioner is the father of the detenue, namely Santhosh Sri, who is aged about 21 years and admittedly, she is a married women and alleging illegal detention / custody at the hands of the 5^th respondent, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner has also lodged a complaint, based on which, a CSR has been registered and subsequently, Crime No.1673 of 2018 came to be registered by the 3^rd respondent for ''Women Missing''.

¶13

It is represented that the detenue was traced and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and the detenue had stated that she was subjected to torture at the hands of her husband and she is not willing to live either in the matrimonial home or in the parental home and since she is a major, she may be left in a position to take her own decision.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 5^th respondent is the friend of the detenue and only as per her illegal advise, she is not coming either to the matrimonial home or parental home and prays for appropriate direction to direct the 4^th respondent to do the needful.

¶15

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary in Cr.No.1673 of 2018, which would disclose among other things that the detenue herself has given a written statement stating about the said facts. The 5^th respondent has also produced a letter to the 3^rd respondent, denying the allegations.

¶16

In the light of the fact that the detenue is a major and being a married women, is entitled to take a conscious decision with regard to her future. A perusal and consideration of the materials would also disclose that the detenue is not said to be in illegal custody / detention at the hands of the 5^th respondent.

¶17

Therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner if so advised, he is at liberty to workout his further remedy in accordance with law before the competent forum.

¶18

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶19

True Copy

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar sk

¶21

¶22

1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

¶23

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

¶24

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016.

¶25

3.The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai-600 044.

¶26

4.The Superintendent of Police, Nilgris District, Udagamandalam.

¶27

5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.465 of 2019
GJII(CO)
SP(23/04/2019)

¶28

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

P.Velan v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Velan v. the Commissioner 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

Sivaraj Vs State Rep. by

J.Ebineser Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Malarvizhi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Kalpana, 26 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Jayakumar, (M/A-34 Years) Vs the State Represented by