G. Parvatharajan, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.994 of 2016 G.Parvatharajan ..

Petitioner vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

4.S.Kumaran .... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name Radhikapatnakker aged about 24 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

For Petitioner .. Mr.M.Senthamizh Selvan For RR1 to 3 .. Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU.,J ) The petitioner is the husband of one Mrs.Radhikapatnakker, aged 24 years. On the allegation that she

has not been seen from 24.04.2016, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

2.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the detenue made appearance before this Court. On enquiry, she submitted that it was only the petitioner who left her at the house of the parents of the detenue by demanding dowry and from that time onwards, she has been living with her parents. According to the detenue, she has not been illegally detained by anybody. The fourth respondent herein is her paternal uncle, who is taking care of the detenue.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from 24.04.2016 onwards, since, the whereabouts of the detenue was not known, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 5.From the statement made by the detenue before this Court, it is crystal clear that there appears to be some matrimonial dispute between the detenue and her husband namely, the petitioner herein and it is also crystal clear that the fact that she has been living along with her parents was very well known to the petitioner. Besides the same, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

6.We are of the considered view that the petitioner has virtually wasted the time of this Court, by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Though, we intended to impose heavy cost on the petitioner, by taking a lenient view, we are not imposing any cost on the petitioner. Since, there is no illegal detention of the detenue, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

1 cc to Ms.R.J.Yoga Ananthi, Advocate, sr.29100 1 cc to Mr.K.Mohanamurali, Advocate, sr.28973 H.C.P.No.994 of 2016 gj co kra 13.06.2016