Santhi Marimuthu v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Santhi Marimuthu Wife of Marimuthu ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam - 611 001.
2.
The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Nagore Police Station Nagapattinam - 611 002.
3.
Gokulakrishnan Son of Madasamy Valliammal Nagar Nagapattinam Taluk Nagore, Nagapattinam - 611 002.
4.
Madasamy, Valliammai Nagar Nagapattinam Taluk Nagore, Nagapattinam - 611 002.
Page Nos.1/8
5.
Parthian Son of Balachandran ..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to to direct the 1st respondent to produce the missing daughter of the petitioner Ms.Mohanapriya, aged 19 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.C.Saikrishna For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.M.Govindarajan, for R3
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 02.03.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.2/8
Page Nos.3/8
Page Nos.4/8
3. Aforementioned earlier proceedings is telltale qua the crux of the matter as well as the trajectory the matter has taken in being listed today. To be noted, as regards listing today, adverting to paragraph No.5 of the previous proceedings, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, instructed by Mr.P.Palanivel (SI), Naagoor Police Station, mentioned the matter saying that the absentee has been located.
4. The matter was listed at the request of both sides, Mr.C.Saikrishna, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, petitioner, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents), Mr.M.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the third respondent and third respondent are before us.
5. To be noted, though a counsel (Mr.M.Praveen Kumar) represented (in the previous listing) on instructions from the respondents 4 and 5 this learned counsel or any one representing learned counsel is not before us. It is further to be noted that no one was before us both in the first call (Forenoon) and second call (Afternoon). Be that as it may, we had a short interaction with the absentee, third respondent and petitioner in that order one after the other. It comes to light that the absentee and third respondent Page Nos.5/8
are married, the date of marriage is 05.12.2022 and we are informed that the marriage was solemnized at Kanur Pillaiyar Temple, Nagapattinam District.
6. At the request of the petitioner, there was an interaction between the petitioner and the absentee with adequate privacy albeit in Court Hall. This was during the lunch session. Post lunch session, the position is no different i.e., absentee said that she is married to third respondent and that she would go with the third respondent. Absentee is a major. Third respondent is also a major.
7. In the light of the narrative thus far, as it is not a case of illegal detention or illegal custody, we deem it appropriate to not to embark upon a habeas corpus legal drill. This means curtains are down on the captioned HCP.
8. The sequitur is, captioned HCP is disposed of as closed. (M.S.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 23.03.2023 Index : Yes Speaking mk Page Nos.6/8
To 1.
The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam - 611 001.
2.
The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Nagore Police Station Nagapattinam - 611 002.
3.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., mk 23.03.2023 Page Nos.8/8