Dismissed

D.Rani, FEMALE/42 Years v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Jul 2019HCP/651/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition filed by a wife seeking the production of her missing husband. Since the matter was pending for two years without the detenu being secured, the court closed the petition but directed the police respondents to supervise and monitor the investigation and produce the detenu to a magistrate once secures.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; direction given to respondents 1 to 3 to supervise and monitor investigation and produce the detenu when secured.

D.Rani, FEMALE/42 Years Vs the Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

H.C.P.No.651 of 2018

D.Rani

.. Petitioner

1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Uddanapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

4.Chinnapaiyan

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, directing the second and third respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Dhurvasan, aged about 52 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Narayanan For Respondents.. Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

Seeking a direction to second and third respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Dhurvasan, aged about

¶19

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

¶20

52 years before this Court and set him at liberty, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.

¶21

2.The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who is stated to be missing from 06.06.2017 onwards and F.I.R. has been registered on 07.06.2017. The subsequent complaint given by the relative of the detenu on the premise that the group which the fourth respondent belongs to is responsible for missing of the detenu was closed after enquiry.

¶22

3.Inasmuch as the matter is pending for two years and the detenu is yet to be secured, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending any longer. Suffice it to direct respondents 1 to 3 to supervise and monitor the investigation and trace the missing detenu. Thus, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. However, we direct respondents 1 to 3 to proceed with the investigation and as and when, the detenu is secured, he should be produced before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

mmi

¶28

¶29

1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police, Uddanapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶31

3.The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶32

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.651 of 2018

PPA(CO)

GMY(14/08/2019)

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

D.Rani, FEMALE/42 Years v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rani, FEMALE/42 Years 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

Arumugam Vs State Rep.by

Kanniyammal (33 Years) Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shahul Hameed Vs the Superintendent of Prisons

G.Ragaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Saivarsha, F/a 22 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.Vijayan, Aged 58 Years Vs the Inspector of Police