Disposed

R.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father filed habeas corpus alleging his 22-year-old daughter had gone missing and suspected abduction by third respondent. Investigation revealed she voluntarily left home and married the third respondent, her classmate. She confirmed via video conference she was not in illegal custody. Petition closed with directions to police for the couple's safety.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; SP Sivagangai directed to ensure safety and protection of the detenue and her husband.

R.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

H.C.P(MD)No.453 of 2025

R.Shanmugam

... Petitioner

-Vs-

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

¶12

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.Gopalakrishnan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the first and second respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Priyadharshini, D/o.Shanmugam (aged 22 years) before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Karthik For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.)

¶22

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to

¶23

direct the respondents 1 & 2 to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Priyadharshini, D/o.Shanmugam (aged 22 years) before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.

¶25

The petitioner's daughter, aged about 22 years who was undergoing third year B.E., course at R.V.S.Engineering College, Coimbatore was missing from 12.03.2025 and suspecting that the third respondent could have abducted her, he had given a complaint to the respondents on 13.03.2025 and since no action has been taken by the respondents to secure the detenue, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.260 of

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶30

2025 has been registered for woman missing and during the course of investigation, it came to light that the daughter of the petitioner had married her classmate, who is the third respondent herein.

¶31

During the enquiry, she has stated that she was in love with the third respondent and that she was kept under the custody against her wish by her father and she approached her cousin brother Sathyaraj and through him she had informed the family members of the third respondent, who had arranged the marriage and she had left home married the third respondent on 13.03.2025 at Pillaiyar Temple, Emeneshwaram. Since her husband belongs to different community, they were apprehending danger from the petitioner's family.

¶32

He further submitted that the detenue had agreed to appear before this Court through Video conferencing. Pursuant to the same, the alleged detenue appeared before this Court today through Video Conferencing. She informed that she on her own volition left her home and married the third respondent, who is her classmate and apprehending danger to their life and they are presently living in Chennai and that she is not under the illegal custody of anybody.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶36

We find that the detenue is not under the illegal detention of anybody,

¶37

this habeas corpus petition is closed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the detenue had married the third respondent, who belongs to a different community and that they apprehending danger to their life, the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai is directed to ensure the safety and protection of the detenue and her husband.

¶38

[A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] 19.06.2025

¶39

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No am

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶46

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

H.C.P(MD) No.453 of 2025

¶50

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA , J.

¶51

¶52

H.C.P(MD)No.453 of 2025

¶53

19.06.2025

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

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

R.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

S.Tharalam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Rani Vs The Home Secretary

Alagammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Jeyakumar Vs Maria Nancy Raina

Arunbaskar Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

T.Brinthatharan (Nil) Vs Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, I.P.S.