Jayasundar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA H.C.P(MD)No.1009 of 2025 Jayasundar .. Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep.,
1. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the Respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter, namely, AshaJ.V., daughter of Jayasundar, aged about 21 years, before this Court and set her liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sam Selva Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor for R1&R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter, namely, Asha.J.V., daughter of Jayasundar, aged about 21 years, before this Court and set her liberty forthwith.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his daughter Asha.J.V. has completed B.A., B.Ed.. While so, one Ranjith Mol, who was an auto driver in profession got acquaintance to his daughter and later the said Ranjith Mol has compelled his daughter to marry to him and also threatened to kill his daughter if she does not oblige to his demand. While so, in order to prevent the said Ranjith Mol from talking to his daughter the petitioner has sent his daughter to a relatives
house and thereafter the said Ranjith Mol has preferred a complaint before the second respondent as if the petitioner had wrongfully restrained his daughter against her will. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife attended the enquiry and later apprehending safety of his daughter, the petitioner's wife preferred a complaint on 17.06.2025. With regard to the complaint, the second respondent police came to the house of the petitioner for enquiry and the petitioner's daughter refused to go with the said Ranjith Mol. Thereafter, the said Ranjith Mol and his father arrived in two motorbikes on 04.07.2025 barged in to the petitioner's house and threatened him with dangerous weapons and had kidnapped the petitioner's daughter. The petitioner thereafter preferred a complaint before the respondent on 04.07.2025 in person as well as through registered post. However, the respondent have not taken any action. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner's wife, one Vijayachandira, enquiry was conducted in CSR.559/2025. In the representation, the petitioner's wife had stated that their daughter who had gone to college was intercepted and kidnapped by the said Ranjith Mol. Based on the complaint, an enquiry was conducted. Both Ranjith Mol and the daughter of the
petitioner were summoned to the police station and the petitioner and his wife also appeared for enquiry. During the enquiry, the petitioner's daughter who is major informed that she got married to the said Ranjith Mol against the wishes of her parents and she has expressed her unwillingness to go along with the petitioner and thereby, the complaint was closed. He would further submit that during the enquiry the petitioner's wife has also taken back the jewels worn by the missing person. The said Ranjith Mol and his family members had given a representation stating that they apprehend safety to their life and the petitioner's wife and the petitioner have also given an undertaking not to interfere with the lives of their daughter and the said Ranjith Mol and thereafter, knowing fully well that their daughter had gone along with the said Ranjith Mol, the petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.
4. This Court has been repeatedly informing that the petitions like this should not be filed. However, the petitioner knowing fully well that his daughter had gone along with the said Ranjith Mol and knowing fully well about the enquiry, has come out with this Habeas Corpus Petition and we find that this is an abuse of process of Court and an attempt has been made to interfere the administration of justice. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss this petition by imposing cost. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw this petition. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. No Costs. [A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] 22.08.2025 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No NCC: Yes/No PJL To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
AND R.POORNIMA , J.
PJL H.C.P(MD)No.1009 of 2025 22.08.2025