Jesse Edward James Gionet v. Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Mr.Jesse Edward James Glonet S/o.Edward Glonet .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station Coimbatore
3. Mr.Senthilkumar ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person and body of the 'xxx', female aged about 19 years, D/o.Senthil Kumar before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel for Ms.S.Valliammal For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Page Nos.1/5
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Central theme of captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] is 'xxx' (we are masking the name of the individual and shall be referring to her as 'absentee' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and absentee's friendship on social media with the petitioner.
2. The petitioner and the absentee are majors. The petitioner is aged 32 years old and the absentee having been born in December of 2003 is 19 years old.
3. As regards aforementioned central theme, further facts as presented before us is that the petitioner who is a Canadian citizen (resides in Canada) came to India in the hope of marrying the absentee and the absentee's father, the third respondent, came in the way and the exercise got derailed. Captioned HCP is predicated on the apprehension that absentee has been illegally detained by the third respondent.
4. Today, the petitioner, petitioner's counsel Mr.S.Senthilvel, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents) instructed by Mr.J.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, E3, Page Nos.2/5
Saravanampatti Police Station, third respondent and absentee are present in Court.
5. We had a short interaction with the absentee. In the interaction, the absentee said that the petitioner and she were friends on a social media platform but marriage with the petitioner is not acceptable for her. Be that as it may, the absentee and the petitioner had an interaction in the Court with adequate privacy and we are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the absentee has informed this factum / absentee's stated position to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by the third respondent vide C.S.R.No.398 of 2023 and that is becoming an impediment for the petitioner to go back to his motherland. Learned Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that C.S.R which was issued on 11.03.2023 was closed on the same day. This means that there is no impediment for the petitioner to fly back to his motherland (Canada). The petitioner is here on a tourist visa. This submission is recorded.
7. We deem it appropriate to leave all other questions and all the rights and contentions of the petitioner, absentee, third respondent and all other Page Nos.3/5
concerned open if there are collateral / connected proceedings in the days to come.
8. As this is not a case of illegal detention, we drop the curtains on the captioned HCP albeit with the above preservation of rights. Captioned HCP disposed of as closed.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 19.06.2023 gpa To
1. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station Coimbatore
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.4/5
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL , J.
gpa 19.06.2023 Page Nos.5/5