Ashok v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.1361 of 2025 Ashok ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Nangavaram Police Station, Karur District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station.

(R3 is Suo motu Impleaded as per order of this Court Dated 21.11.2025)

4. Sekar ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to produce the detenue body or person by name Pandiselvi, D/o.Krishnan, Hindu, aged about 39 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.) This petition has been filed seeking direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the wife of the petitioner Pandiselvi before this Court.

2. During the hearing date on 21.11.2025, in view of the statements made across the bar by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we had suo motu impleaded the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, as further respondent in the petition. A status report had been field by the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, wherein, it had been stated that the entire complaint of the petitioner is false to the knowledge of the petitioner. It had been stated that as against the petitioner and his wife Pandiselvi, FIR in Crime No.463 of 2024 had been registered for the 2/6

offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) of BNS, 2023, on a complaint received from the 4th respondent. This was registered on 06.12.2024. Thereafter, the detenue was arrested and remanded to custody on 06.12.2024 and remanded in judicial custody, till she was released on bail on 24.12.2024. It is stated that there is yet another case pending between the petitioner and his wife, who was arrayed as accused in S.T.C.No.78 of 2024, on a complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, relating to a dishonor of cheque.

3. It had been stated that the said Pandiselvi has been treated as an absconding accused in the said S.T.C.No.78 of 2024. It had been further stated in the status report that the detenue did not appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, where S.T.C.No.78 of 2024 is pending and when enquired with the reason, the learned Magistrate appears to have informed the petitioner that he could lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police station. It is for that reason, the complaint had been lodged before the second respondent, Nangavaram Police Station, suppressing all the earlier facts.

4. It is further stated that even after the date of alleged 3/6

disappearance of the detenue, there has been whatsapp communication between the petitioner herein and the detenue and couriers have also been sent by her. It is also informed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigation reveals that detenue's phone, which has IMEI 1- 35120418782185, IMEI - 2-355296508782187, has been used by the petitioner herein. It is thus evident that the petitioner knows the whereabouts of the detenue and only to escape from the clutches of law, the Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.

5. We are also informed that an anticipatory bail application had been initially filed before the High Court by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the High Court and later, suppressing that fact, the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail before the trial Court with respect to FIR in Crime No.463/2024 and consequently, the 4th respondent had filed an application seeking to cancel that anticipatory bail application, which is pending before this Court.

6. Since jurisdictional Courts have taken note of the proceedings and the proceedings are pending before the competent Court, it may not be appropriate to issue any direction in the Habeas 4/6

Corpus Petition. The detenue is an absconding accused. She may well be advised to surrender before the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.) 27.11.2025 vsm To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Nangavaram Police Station, Karur District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station.

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

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

and 5/6

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

vsm ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD) No.1361 of 2025 27.11.2025 6/6