J.Rajaiya Vs Velu

Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for committing contempt of Court by wilfully and wantonly disobeying the order of this Court dated 30.08.2022 passed in H.C.P.No.1545 of 2022.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson

¶14

For respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.)

¶20

Cont.P.No.756 of 2024

¶21

Alleging that the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by this Court has not been complied with by the respondent, this contempt petition has been filed.

¶22

2. The facts leading to the filing of this contempt petition are as follows:

¶23

2.1. The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition being H.C.P.No.1545 of 2022 seeking production of his daughter, viz ., Narayana Lakshmi, aged about 25 years, who, allegedly, is said to be in illegal custody of one Jagadeeswaran, third respondent therein, before the Court.

¶24

2.2. The petitioner's case in the habeas corpus petition was that

¶25

the detenue is an Engineering Graduate working in a multi-national company, viz ., CITI Corp. at Ramanujam I.T.Park and she was given in marriage on 10.06.2022 to one Rajesh Mani, a Scientist, working in the USA; the said Rajesh Mani left for the USA promising that he would take the detenue with him to the USA; while so, the detenue went missing; later, the petitioner came to know that the detenue had been kidnapped

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

Cont.P.No.756 of 2024

¶29

by Jagadeeswaran; therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent therein, based on which, a case in Crime No.194 of 2022 was registered for 'woman-missing' on 12.07.2022; since no action was taken pursuant to his complaint, the petitioner filed H.C.P. No.1545 of 2022.

¶30

2.3. When the aforesaid habeas corpus petition was taken up for hearing, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the detenue is a major aged 25 years; investigation conducted pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner revealed that she was forcibly given in marriage to Rajesh Mani against her wishes; she was, in fact, harassed by her family members, including the petitioner; she eloped with Jagadeeswaran on her own volition; and she had even posted certain videos in her Twitter account addressing the Hon'ble Chief Minister in this regard to show that she is not in illegal custody of anyone.

¶31

2.4. Based on the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, H.C.P. No. 1545 of 2022 was closed with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kelambakkam Sub Division, Chengalpattu District, to supervise the investigation in Cr.No.194 of 2022 and keep the petitioner informed of the developments. It was further observed that as and when the detenue is secured, she shall be produced

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

Cont.P.No.756 of 2024

¶35

before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Chengalpattu District, under intimation to the petitioner.

¶36

2.5. As stated in the opening paragraph, alleging that the aforesaid order dated 30.08.2022 has not been complied with, this contempt petition has been filed.

¶37

3. Mr.C.D. Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the respondent, despite knowing the whereabouts of the detenue, has not taken steps to secure and produce the detenue, as directed by this Court in the order dated 30.08.2022 and thus, a case for contempt has been made out.

¶38

4. Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that this is a case of elopement and not one of the detenue being kept in illegal detention of anyone, much less Jagadeeswaran. It is also his stance that in view of his detailed submission at the time of hearing of H.C.P. No.1545 of 2022, recording which, the said habeas corpus petition was closed, there is no need for securing the detenue and cause her production before the Court. He further submitted that only as a measure of wreaking vengeance against the detenue, this contempt petition has come to be filed.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

Cont.P.No.756 of 2024

¶42

5.

¶43

5. A bare reading of the order dated 30.08.2022, alleging noncompliance of which, this contempt petition has been filed, reveals that the direction given to the respondent police was that the detenue shall be produced as and when she is secured. In other words, no direction requiring the respondent police to produce the detenue, much less within a time frame, was given in the order dated 30.08.2022. That apart, in the light of the detenue's categorical admission in her Twitter account as aforesaid, coupled with the admitted fact that the detenue is a major, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the respondent has disobeyed the order dated 30.08.2022, thereby committing contempt of Court. (emphasis supplied)

¶44

6. In such perspective of the matter, this contempt petition

¶45

stands closed.

¶46

(R.S.K., J.) (A.D.J.C., J.) 24.09.2025

¶47

NC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji/cad

¶48

5/6

¶49

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