V.Sulotchana v. The Commissioner 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 Mrs.Sulochana V W/o.Vairamuthu ....
Petitioner/ Mother of the detenu Vs.
1.
The Commissioner of Police greater Chennai The Commissioner Office EVK Sampath Salai Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 2.
The Inspector of Police E-3, Police Station, Teynampet Chennai - 600 018 ....
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner son namely Vinoth Kumar aged about 29 years before this Court and set him at liberty.
Page Nos.1/5
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Prabhu For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP'] has been filed saying that petitioner's son one Vinoth Kumar, aged 29 years, is missing from 08.08.2022.
2. Mr.V.Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a complaint has been lodged with the second respondent police (jurisdictional police) on 10.08.2022 and pursuant to the same, an FIR for 'Man Missing' has been registered vide Crime No.265 of 2022 (dated 10.08.2022).
3. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, who accepts notice for the respondents (official respondents) [to be noted, no private respondent finds a place in the array of Page Nos.2/5
respondents] submits that pursuant to aforementioned FIR, investigation commenced and preliminary investigation brings to light that steps were taken to get the absentee married to 'xxx', not being interested in the marriage and being disenchanted with the petitioner, the absentee has left home.
4. We deem it appropriate to say that the investigation shall proceed in accordance with law. Though obvious, we express no opinion or view on the investigation and what appears to have surfaced in the preliminary stage of the investigation. We also remind ourselves of Selvaraj case [Selvaraj Vs State, rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District and another reported in (2018) 3 MLJ (Crl) 712] wherein in a similar fact situation a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that such cases cannot be brought within the legal drill of a HCP. To be noted, this Selvaraj case is also a case law for the principle that such cases cannot be subjected to HCP legal drill and that HCP legal drill will be attracted only in cases of allegations and illegal detention. We also remind ourselves of Sukumari case [K.Sukumari Vs Superintendent of Police and others reported in (2018) 2 LW (Crl) 636 : (2018) 3 MWN (Crl) 122], wherein Page Nos.3/5
guidelines were laid down by this Court authored by one of us (N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,) for dealing with such Man Missing cases. We are informed that XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet is the jurisdictional Court. Though obvious, jurisdictional police shall produce the absentee before the jurisdictional Magistrate as and when absentee is located.
5. Curtains are down on the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition. Captioend HCP disposed of as closed albeit with the aforementioned observation.
(M.S.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 23.03.2023 Index : Yes Speaking gpa To 1.
The Commissioner of Police greater Chennai The Commissioner Office EVK Sampath Salai Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 2.
The Inspector of Police E-3, Police Station, Teynampet Chennai - 600 018 3.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.4/5
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH.J, gpa 23.03.2023 Page Nos.5/5