SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

S.Geetha Kumari-vs-The Inspector Of Police on 17 December, 2009

Madras High Court S.Geetha Kumari-vs-The Inspector Of Police on 17 December, 2009

DATED : 17.12.2009

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH

H.C.P.No.1681 of 2009

S.Geetha Kumari .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

Chittialampakkam,

Chennai 64.

2. N.S.Rajkumar,

No.H-23, TNHB Colony,

Mullai Nagar,

Tambaram West.

3. Bahuleyan Nair,

Mangalya, Pinanthodu,

Kulasekaram P.O.

(2nd respondent impleaded as per

order of this Court dt.14.12.2009

in M.P.1/2009) .. Respondents

Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent to produce the body of the petitioner’s son by name S.Saravana Prasad S/o S.Srikumaran Nair, aged 31 years, who is believed to be under the illegal custody of antisocial elements before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chenthil Kumar

For Respondents: Mr.V.R.Subramaniam, APP for R1.

Mr.M.Chidambaam, for R2

O R D E R

(The order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

Seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus, for production of her son S.Saravana Prasad, the petitioner Geetha Kumari has brought forth this application.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and for the State. The Court also looked into the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the materials available on record.

3. Admittedly, the marriage between the said Saravana Prasad and the daughter of the third respondent took place on 21.5.2007 and they lead a happy matrimonial life for one year and due to the wedlock, a child was born to them. Thereafter, the relationship between the spouse became strained and they were living apart. While the matter stood thus, this application was brought forth for issuance of Habeas Corpus alleging that on 27.8.2009, Saravana Prasad was actually attacked by the second respondent which came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 9.9.2009. Immediately, she gave a telegraphic message to the respondent Police Station but on the contrary, the case was registered as if an intimation was given by the house owner of Saravana Prasad. Despite the complaint, as on today, the Police have not taken any steps to secure him. Saravana Prasad was found missing from the 27.8.2009. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is compelled to file this application before this Court.

4. Pending this application, the second and third respondents were added as parties who are the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the missing, Saravana Prasad. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the application.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/State would submit that in instant case, the said Saravana Prasad was actually found naked in a public road and he was taken by the Police to the Police Station where he executed a letter stating that he would go to his native place. Now, the petitioner has come forward as if her son was missing therefrom.

6. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents would submit, it is true there was a marriage between Saravana Parasad and the daughter of 3rd respondent. At the time of marriage, 143 sovereign of gold jewels and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- was given to him. Not satisfied with the same, the said Saravana Prasad demanded for further articles and money. There was dowry demand, hence, a complaint was lodged by his wife at Kuzhithurai Police Station on 2.6.2009. Subsequently, a complaint was also lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil on 8.6.2009, but no steps were taken. Under such circumstances, the wife of Saravana Prasad, filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2295/2009 under section 498A, 420, 406 IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was also shown as the accused along with her son and husband. Summons were served upon the petitioner and her husband but the same could not be served upon Saravana Prasad. The learned counsel would further submit, now, a phone call was received from Saudi Arabia stating that the said Saravana Prasad was living there with his sister’s husband. Under such circumstances, this application has been filed in order to escape from the clutches of law and pending proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate Court. Hence, this petition has got to be dismissed.

7. After going through the materials available on record, it is quite clear that due to dowry demand, a private complaint in C.C.No.2295/2009 was actually filed by the wife of Saravana Prasad before the Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, after lodging two complaints, one before the concerned Police on 2.6.2009 and the other before the Superintendent of Police Nagercoil on 8.6.2009, and proceedings are pending before the said Court. It is not in controversy that Saravana Prasad is shown as an accused along with the petitioner/mother and also his father. Hence, it is indicative of the fact that Saravana Prasad who is shown as an accused has to appear before the Court.

8. It is quire clear that after the complaint was lodged, this application has been brought forth by the petitioner later, as if her son is missing. It is seen that Saravana Prasad has given a letter to the respondent Police that he was going to his native place. An information was received by the second and third respondents that Saravana Prasad was in Saudi Arabia along with his sister’s husband. All would go to show that this application has been brought forth as a preventive measure in order to escape from the clutches of law in the M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.

and

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH,J.

vsi

pending proceedings in C.C.No.2295/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kuzhithurai. Therefore, the request of the petitioner as if her son is missing and he has got to be secured, does not require consideration by this Court. Hence, the application requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

(M.C.,J.) (V.P.K.,J.)

18.12.2009

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

vsi

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Chittialampakkam,

Chennai 64.

2. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Chennai.

Main – Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation