R.Chinnapaiyan, (M/43) v. The Superintendent Of Police
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 05.6.2017 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and The Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.867 of 2017 R.Chinnapaiyan
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengam Range, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Paichal Police Station, Paichal, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.Ms.Shajitha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.
5.Mr.Elangovan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Paichal Police Station, Paichal, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.Mr.B.Annamalai 7.Mr.M.Mahadevan
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the first respondent to produce the corpus of the petitioner's wife namely C.Dhanalakshmi, W/O R.Chinnapaiyan, aged about 39 years, residing at No.280/301, Renugammal Kovil Street, (2)Ambedkar Nagar, Paichal Village & Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District from the illegal custody of respondents 6 and 7 and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumaradevan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepting notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, for a while and after perusing the file produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in which, the alleged detenue sent a detailed communication, running to more than two pages, through post from Vellore to the Police Station, Paichal Village, Chengam Taluk, clearly disclosing the cause of certain disputes between herself and her husband. She left her matrimonial home on her own and she has not been detained by anybody. A statement was also recorded by the Police to that effect from the detenue.
2. At that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw this writ petition unconditionally so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his remedies available under law. An endorsement to that effect was also made on the reverse of the docket of this case.
3. Hence, the writ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengam Range, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Paichal Police Station, Paichal, Thiruvannamalai District.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Kumaradevan Advocate sr 39948 HCP.No.867 of 2017 nmi(co) aa14/06/2017