Madras High CourtCRL RC/37/2017dismissed

T.Shanmugam, Aged 55 Years, v. The State Rep. By

2017-01-10Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2017 T.Shanmugam S/o.T.K.Thoppasamy Mudaliyar .. Petitioner vs.

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Vellore South (L&O) Police Station, Vellore District.

Crime No.565 of 2016 .. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Vellore, Vellore District, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3813 of 2016 on 30.11.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Government Advocate [Crl.side] *****

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Vellore, Vellore District, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3813 of 2016 on 30.11.2016.

2. On the petitioner's daughter having gone missing, he has preferred a complaint and a case was registered in Crime No.565 of 2016 on the file of respondent as 'woman missing'. Pursuant thereto, the girl was secured and produced before learned Judicial Magistrate I, Vellore, on 10.11.2016. On being satisfied that the girl wished to go with her husband, the Court below permitted her to accompany him. Subsequently, petitioner moved C.M.P.No.3813 of 2016 informing the need for medical treatment for his daughter in keeping with Section 24, 20(2) of Mental Health Act, 1987, since she was mentally ill. Court below, under a detailed order dated 30.11.2016, found it fit to dismiss such petition. Hence, this revision.

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

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].

4. A perusal of the order under challenge reveals that the Court below on being satisfied that the petitioner has not produced any proof that his daughter is in need of immediate treatment at a Psychiatry Hospital and that as a major girl, petitioner's daughter, who had left her parental home and voluntarily entered upon marriage, could not be proceed against in the manner sought for by petitioner/her father, has dismissed the petition. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that in the docket it had been mentioned that the petition was allowed, however, the detailed order informs otherwise. The discrepancy pointed out is innocuous. Finding no merits, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Vellore, Vellore District.

2.do thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vellore South (L&O) Police Station, Vellore District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 cc to Mr.E.Kannadasan,advocate,sr.3314.

ev(co) krd 17/2 Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/