Ar.Amutha, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN H.C.P.[MD].No.796 of 2017 AR.Amutha : Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai, Sivagangai District.

4.Muthu 5.Sarasu : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to produce the body and person of Kannan, S/o.Muthu, aged 21, son of respondents 4 and 5 herein, from their illegal custody, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Muruganandam For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed alleging that one Kannan, who is the son of the respondents 4 and 5 herein, has been illegally detained by the said respondents and therefore, the petitioner wanted him to be produced before this Court. The case of the petitioner is that when she was a minor, she fell in love with the said Kannan, who, in turn promised that he will marry her and they exchanged garlands. To substantiate the above, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

a photograph has been produced in the typed set of papers. With these facts, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the said Kannan before this Court and set him at liberty.

3. Firstly, the so-called undertaking, which is stated to have been given, when the petitioner was a minor, would not bind the parties. Furthermore, we find that there is no material produced to show that the said Kannan has been illegally detained by the respondents 3 and 4, who are none other than his parents. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, while closing the Habeas Corpus Petition, we leave it open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if she is so advised. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai, Sivagangai District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.B.MURUGANANTHAM, Advocate, SR No. 58579. NB PSM/SKN/SAR1/15.06.2017/2P/6C ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.[MD].No.796 of 2017 06.06.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/