Disposed

Muthukumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC26 Aug 2021HCP/1302/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition for his missing wife. The petition was closed with a direction to the police to monitor the investigation and produce the detenue if secured.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with direction to DPS, Sirkali to monitor investigation and produce detenue if secured before District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangampadi.

Muthukumar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

H.C.P.NO.1302 OF 2021

Muthukumar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to secure the detenue Reema and produce the person or body of the detenue Reema, W/o.Muthukumar, aged about 22 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Karthikeyan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶15

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to secure the detenue Reema, aged about 22 years and produce her before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that he got married to Reema sometime in the year 2017 and was blessed with a child Mithunashree, who is now aged about 2 years. It is his further case that while he had gone for work on 20.02.2021, his wife Reema went missing and thereafter, her whereabouts are not known. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the police are

¶17

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

¶18

not taking effective steps to secure his wife Reema.

¶19

On instructions, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on a complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Poraiyar Police Station Crime No.139 of 2021 was registered on 24.02.2021 for 'woman missing' and investigation is in progress.

¶20

Recording the same, this habeas corpus petition stands closed with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkali Sub-Division, to monitor the investigation in Poraiyar Police Station Crime No.139 of 2021 and keep the petitioner informed of the developments, if any. As and when the detenue Reema, aged about 22 years, is secured, she shall be produced before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangampadi, under intimation to the petitioner. On such production, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders with regard to custody in accordance with law.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

nsd

¶25

¶26

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tharangampadi.

¶27

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶28

Sirkali Sub-Division.

¶29

3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai.

¶30

4.The Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P.No.1302 of 2021

¶33

PL(CO)

¶34

PM/20/09/2021

¶35

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

Muthukumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar 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

Saranya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its

Faridha Vs the Secretary to the Government

Sarasu Vs State Rep by

Ramasamy Vs State Rep by

Karthick Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police

Sivagami Vs the Superintendent of Police