Disposed

Narayanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Jun 2020HCP/848/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Habeas Corpus petition seeking release of a 17-year-old minor alleged to be in illegal custody. Due to a state lockdown, the Court directed the police to form a special team to trace the minor and produce her before the CJM within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Police to form a special team to trace the minor and produce her before the CJM within three weeks; directed the SP to monitor the matter.

Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.06.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.848 OF 2020 (HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶6

Narayanan, M/65, S/o.Karuppa Naicker. .. Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Konganapuram Police Station, Salem District.

¶10

Periyasamy, S/o.Narayanan. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer:-

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the second respondent to produce the petitioner's granddaughter, namely, P.Midhuna, aged 17 years before this Court from the illegal custody of the 3^rd respondent and hand over to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶14

For Respondents: RR1 & 2 – Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)

¶17

Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

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

¶19

2.In the light of the order, this Court proposes to pass, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶20

3.The petitioner is the paternal grandfather of the detenue, minor P.Midhuna stated to be aged 17 years and pursing her B.Com., course in the AVS College, Salem. It is stated that the third respondent is the son of the petitioner, who had married one Hemalatha and out of the wedlock, P.Midhuna was born. It appears that the said Hemalatha, mother of the detenue, has left the matrimonial home and the third respondent has married one Rajeswari and living separately in the same village.

¶21

4.The petitioner alleges that the third respondent has forcibly taken away the petitioner's granddaughter, P.Midhuna and proposes to give her in marriage to his second wife's brother. Furthermore, the petitioner would state that ever since P.Midhuna was born, she has been under the care and custody of the petitioner/grandfather, as her mother had left the matrimonial home.

¶22

5.The question would be whether the petitioner can claim guardianship over the detenue ?, which, obviously, cannot be decided in a Habeas Corpus Petition. Nevertheless, since there is an allegation that minor girl has been forcibly taken, we are of the view that the respondent police should take earnest steps to trace the whereabouts of the detenue.

¶23

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the second respondent-Police, submitted that the detenue is missing from the village and her father, the third respondent is also not in the village and they have reliable information that the detenue is in touch with one Mr.Santhosh Kumar, who is said to have been enquired by the second respondent-Police. Furthermore, the petitioner as well as the third respondent are also enquired into. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondent police are effectively carrying out the investigation and if reasonable time is granted, they will be in a position to secure the detenue.

¶24

7.Considering the present situation, where the entire State is in a lock-down, we are inclined to dispose of this Habeas Corpus Petition with the following directions:-

¶25

(i) The second respondent-Police shall form a Special Team and take all effective steps to trace the minor detenue and produce her before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, and the petitioner and the third respondent shall also be put on notice with regard to the date on which she is produced before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, either

¶26

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

¶27

in person or through Video Conferencing;

¶28

(ii) In order to ensure that effective steps are being taken to secure the detenue, the first respondent - Superintendent of Police, Salem, is directed to monitor the matter; and

¶29

(iii) The second respondent shall complete the entire process within a period of three weeks from today (11-06-2020) and produce the detenue before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶30

8.With the above directions, this Habeas Corpus petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

abr/gg

¶36

¶37

The Superintendent of Police, Salem District,

¶38

Salem.

¶39

The Inspector of Police, Konganapuram Police Station, Salem District.

¶40

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶41

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶42

H.C.P.No.848 of 2020

¶43

VD(CO) CS/13/07/2020

¶44

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

Narayanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan 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

G.Gowri Vs the Secretary to the Government

B.Sundarambal Vs the Secretary to the Government

V.Sangeetha Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Kishore Kumar @ Kishore Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.Sarojini Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

J.Antony Jayakumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu