P.Nirmala v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04-03-2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.190 of 2016 P.Nirmala ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police H6, R.K.Nagar Police Station Chennai 600 021 ... Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body of the petitioner's son Eshwar Babu, aged about 25 years, son of P.Suresh, resident of No.17/6, Sikirinthapalayam, 4th Street, Korukkupettai, Chennai 600 021, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by M.JAICHANDREN, J.) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.This habeas corpus petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu viz. Eshwar Babu, aged about 25 years, before this Court and to set him at liberty.
3.It has been stated by the petitioner that the detenu, who is her elder son, has been missing from 11.1.2016. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the second respondent police, on 12.1.2016. However, as no effective steps had been taken, by the second respondent, to trace the detenu, the petitioner has preferred the present habeas corpus petition before this Court.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.At this stage of the hearing of the habeas corpus petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, had placed before this Court, a letter written by the petitioner, dated 9.2.2016, stating that the detenu, the son of the petitioner, had returned home, unharmed. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred to withdraw the complaint lodged by her before the second respondent. 5.In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, and in view of the letter written by the petitioner to the second respondent, dated 9.2.2016, we find that the habeas corpus petition has become infructuous. 6.Hence, the habeas corpus petition stands dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsv To:
1. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police H6, R.K.Nagar Police Station Chennai 600 021
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.190 of 2016 KGK(CO) CA(13/04/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/