Disposed

Kasinathan v. State Rep by

Madras HC28 Jul 2021HCP/1144/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed by a husband under Article 226 seeking a habeas corpus order to produce his missing wife and two-year-old son. The Court closed the petition after noting that a missing persons case had been registered and directed the police to monitor the investigation and keep the petitioner informed. Once the detenues are secured, they are to be produced before the Judicial Magist

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to monitor the ongoing investigation into the missing persons case and keep the petitioner informed.

Kasinathan Vs State Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1144 of 2021

¶6

Kasinathan ... Petitioner/Husband of the detenue

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenues Sivaranjini, aged about 26 years, wife of Kasinathan and minor son Dev, aged about 2 years, son of Kasinathan and entrust the custody of the detenues to the petitioner.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to secure the petitioner's wife Sivaranjini, aged about 26 years and his son Dev, aged about 2 years and entrust their custody to him.

¶13

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

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that he got married to Sivaranjini and through her, he begot a child viz., Dev, aged about 2 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that Sivaranjini and Dev went missing from 08.07.2021 and that the police are not taking effective steps to secure them.

¶15

On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on a complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Veraiyur Police Station Crime No.355 of 2021 was registered on 10.07.2021 for 'woman and boy missing' and investigation is in progress.

¶16

In such view of the matter, this habeas corpus petition stands closed with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Sub-division, to monitor the investigation in Veraiyur Police Station Crime No.355 of 2021 and keep the petitioner informed of the developments, if any. As and when Sivaranjini, aged about 26 years and Dev, aged about 2 years, are secured, they shall be produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvannamalai, under intimation to the petitioner. On such production, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders with regard to custody in accordance with law.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

nsd To

¶21

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai.

¶22

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Sub-Division.

¶23

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶24

4.The Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶25

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

¶26

5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate Sr.36350

¶28

H.C.P.No.1144 of 2021

¶29

rgn[co] srg 23/08/2021

¶30

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

Kasinathan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasinathan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubeka Sathya Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Tmt.Sathya Vs the Secretary to Government

Ganesan Vs the Secretary to the Government

Chinnaraj @ Udayan Vs State Represented by

Murugasamy Vs State Rep.by

P.Chanadrasekar Vs State Rep by