K. Vimal Kumar, Age 24, v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.BASKARAN H.C.P.No.1418 of 2016 K.Vimal Kumar ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Salem District.
2.Arun 3.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem ... Respondents 3rd respondent impleaded as per order of this Court, dated 21.09.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.10007 of 2016 in H.C.P.No.1418 of 2016.
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the first respondent herein to produce the wife of the petitioner, Kanimozhi, wife of K.Vimal Kumar, 19 years, before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents :
Mr.V.M.R.Rajendren, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3.
2. This habeas corpus petition had been filed by the husband of the detenue, namely, Kanimozhi, aged about 19 years, praying, that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents, to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her at liberty.
3. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the detenue had taken place, on 26.5.2016, at Kaliyaperumal Temple, Taramangalam, as per the Hindu rites and customs. While so, the detenue, had left the matrimonial home, on 01.07.2016, and it had been suspected that the second respondent had abducted the detenue, against her will and is keeping her in illegal custody. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. The said complaint had been registered in Crime No.221 of 2016, on 01.07.2016, as a 'woman missing case.' However, as no further action had been taken, by the respondent police, the petitioner had preferred the present habeas corpus petition, before this Court.
4. A detailed status report has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, dated 5.8.2016, giving the necessary details of the action taken, by the respondent police, to trace the detenue. It had been stated that the second respondent had been arrested and kept in custody. Paragraph No.10 of the status report reads as follows:
" 10. I submit that so far the investigation reveals that the 2nd respondent original name is Arunpandian.
(i) Kanimozhi, the detenue after completing +2, she did not allow for higher studies by her parents and residing with her parents at Karuppanampatty, Omalur Police Station jurisdiction limit.
(ii) the detenue's father lodged complaint before the "Omalur Police Station" stated that her daughter/detenue was missing on 30.03.2016 at about 3.00 hours, based on the complaint a case was registered in Omalur P.S.Crime No.237/2016 under Section "Girl Missing" and on 30.03.2016.
(iii) On 01.04.2016, the detenue herself returned to her residence, whileso, her parents were produced the detenue before the Omalur Police Station and the detenue gave a statement, wherein she has stated that the 2nd respondent took her forcibly from her house and went to Palani and got marry her and also stayed in a lodge therein and forcibly had sexual intercourse and thereafter stayed in his relatives house. Based on her statement, section was altered into "363, 366 I.P.C., r/w.9 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act 2006, r/w 5(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and thereafter the 2nd respondent was arrested and remanded on 02.04.2016. (iv) On 05.04.2016, the detenue was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Omalur and recorded 164 Cr.P.C.statement. (v) After completion of detailed and elaborated investigation, the investigation officer in Omalur P.S.Obtained legal opinion and approval and laid a
charge sheet on 04.06.2016, before the learned District Sessions Judge, Magila Court, Salem, vide S.C.No.56 of 2016 and the same was pending for trial. The next hearing date 19.08.2016 for produce of accused i.e. 2nd respondent/Arunpandian."
5. It is noted that the detenue, who is a major, has gone away with the second respondent, for the second time, on her own will. It is also noted that the second respondent had been arrested and appropriate legal action has been taken against him, as per law. In such circumstances, we do not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition stands closed. However, it goes without saying that the respondent police shall continue the investigation and take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar msk To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Salem District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
1 cc to M./s.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, Sr. 59473 H.C.P.No.1418/2016 RK (CO) kk 15/11