Allowed

M.Parameshwari v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Nov 2022HCP/1012/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goonda Prevention Act, 1982. The High Court held that the furnishing of only two pages of the FIR to the detenu deprived him of an effective representation opportunity. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 31.03.2022 in BCDFGISSSV No.51/2022 was quashed/set aside, and the detenu Manikandan @ Mani was directed to be released forthwith.

M.Parameshwari Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.11.2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and

¶6

The Honourable Mr. Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

M.Parameshwari

.. Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur Chennai – 600 119.

¶14

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal,

¶15

Chennai – 600 066.

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai – 600 117.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶21

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dated 31.03.2022 in BCDFGISSSV No.51/2022 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Manikandan @ Mani, male, aged about 34 years, S/o.Kanniyappan, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prasanthan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J. )

¶26

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Manikandan @ Mani, male, aged about 34 years, S/o.Kanniyappan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.51/2022 dated 31.03.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶31

Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that an FIR in Crime No.61 of 2022 pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been fully furnished to the detenu and only two pages of the said FIR have been furnished, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.

¶32

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.

¶33

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the FIR in Crime No.61 of 2022 pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been fully furnished to the detenu and only Page 3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶36

two pages of the said FIR have been furnished. Therefore, nonfurnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶37

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.51/2022 dated 31.03.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz . Manikandan @ Mani, male, aged about 34 years, S/o.Kanniyappan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶38

(P.N.P., J.) (G.C.S., J.) 25.11.2022

¶39

Index: Yes/No nsd

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶43

¶44

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat,

¶45

Chennai - 600 009.

¶46

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur

¶47

Chennai – 600 119.

¶48

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal,

¶49

Chennai – 600 066.

¶50

4.The Inspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station,

¶51

Chennai – 600 117.

¶52

5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶53

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶57

P.N.PRAKASH, J. and G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶58

nsd

¶59

H.C.P.No.1012 of 2022

¶60

25.11.2022

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Parameshwari v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parameshwari v. State Rep by

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

State Rep by Vs Udhaya @ Udhaya Kumar

T.K.Shankar Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Mooventhan Vs the State Rep by Its

State Rep by Vs Natesan

Mrs. Kavitha Surana Vs Adjudicating Authority

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu