Ranjith Kumar.A v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P.[MD].No.1771 of 2017 Ranjith Kumar.A : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupallikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Parvathy : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the second respondent to produce the body of the detenu, namely, Angaleshwari, D/o.Boominathan, [Late], aged 20 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent No.3 : No Appearance

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the husband of the detenu, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the second respondent to produce the body of the detenu, namely, Angaleshwari, D/o.Boominathan, [Late], aged 20 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

2. According to the petitioner, he has completed B.Sc., Physics and has been working in a Private Company at Chennai. The petitioner and the detenu fell in love with each other and they got married on 23.06.2017 and their marriage was also duly registered before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Office of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvallur and they started to live at Chennai as husband and wife. While so, the detenu received a phone call from the third respondent herein, who is none other than the mother of the detenu, stating that she wanted to see the detenu. Accordingly, the petitioner also sent the detenu to the house of her mother. However, the detenu did not return back to Chennai. While so, the petitioner received a phone call from his wife stating that her relatives are harassing her not to allow her to live with the petitioner. Under the above stated circumstances, the petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent police. Since there were no effective steps taken by the second respondent police to trace out the detenu, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration, the detenu appeared before us. On enquiry, she has stated that she is aged about 20 years and since she fell in love with the petitioner, on her own volition, she went out of the home along with him and married him. Further, the detenu has stated that since the marriage is an inter-caste marriage, her relatives have been threatening her and the petitioner and thus, they sought for police protection.

4. We have also enquired the petitioner, who has stated that he has taken a house at Chennai on rent and he will take care of the detenu.

5. In view of the statement made by the detenu, in our considered view, nothing survives for adjudication in the Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. However, we make it clear that the petitioner and the detenu are at liberty to make a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station, seeking police protection, where they reside, if there is any danger to their lives.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupallikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One cc to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No.92349 NB RL/5C/2P/SKN/RSK/SAR4/26/12/2017 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.[MD].No.1771 of 2017 11.12.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/