Loganathan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.05.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Loganathan ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Madurai 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Usilampatti Division Madurai District 3.The Inspector of Police Checkanurani Police Station Checkanurani, Madurai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the person or body of the detenu, namely, Sankar Ganesh, son of the petitioner (Loganathan), aged about 41 years old, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Sundaraprasath For Respondents :

Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.] The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking a direction to the respondents to secure his son, namely, Sankar Ganesh, aged about 41 years, produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu is the foster son of the petitioner and when financial difficulty arose, the petitioner sold the property and entrusted a huge sum of money with his son / detenu herein and thereafter, he is found missing and hence this habeas corpus petition.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a dispute between the father and son. The son has financial difficulties and therefore, he has gone away with the money. The father now wants the money back. It is a financial dispute

between the father and son and it is not a fit case where the habeas corpus petition should be entertained. It is also further stated that when the respondent Police requested the petitioner for enquiry, he did not co-operate for the enquiry.

4. In reply thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now ready to co-operate for the enquiry.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material records of the case.

6. It can be seen even from the averments made in the affidavit that there are financial disputes between the father and son and this is not a case where it is even alleged that the son is under any illegal custody. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained. It will be open for the petitioner to take such steps in the manner known to law with reference to the money that is entrusted to his son.

7. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition stands disposed of. [D.B.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 20.05.2026 NCC :

Yes / No krk To:

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Division, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Checkanurani Police Station, Checkanurani, Madurai District.

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

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

AND R.POORNIMA, J.

krk 20.05.2026