Madras High Court
S.Manoj vs The Superintendent Of Police on 5 September, 2022
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
S.Manoj
S/o.K.Selvam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Erode Taluk Police Station,
Erode.
3.Somasundaram
S/o.Velusamy .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to produce the body of the detenue Gayathri, aged 20 years, daughter
of Somasundaram and set her at liberty before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramaraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor [R1 & R2]
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
*****
ORDER
[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]
This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1
and 2 herein to produce the detenue viz., Gayathri D/o.Somasundaram, aged
20 years and set her at liberty.
2. On 08.06.2022, this Court passed the following order:
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to
the Respondents 1 & 2 to produce the body of the detenue, namely,
Gayathri, D/o.Somasundaram, aged about 20 years and set her at
liberty.
2. The Petitioner has stated that both he and the detenue are in
love with each other and decided to marry. Since they belong to
different sects, there was a strong opposition on the side of the
detenue's family. He has further stated that as the detenue has been
illegally detained by the 3rd respondent / father and her family
members, he has lodged a Police complaint with the 2nd respondent.
The 2nd respondent Police, except issuance of CSR No.175 of 2022
dated 11.05.2022, has not taken any steps to secure the detenue and
acted in a biased manner to support the cause of the 3rd respondent.
Having left with no other alternative, he has filed the present petition
for production of the detenue before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent has
strenuously contended that the Petitioner has no locus to file this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
petition, as he is not her husband and therefore, the present petition
is not maintainable before this Court. He has further contended that
the detenue is not in the illegal custody of anyone and she is safe in
the house of her parents at Erode.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in
the morning, Police has confirmed production of the detenue before
this Court and during lunch hours, a voice message received by the
Sub Inspector of Police has been forwarded to him, in which, an
Advocate informed Police that the detenue would be produced only
through Video Conference.
5. The detenue, by name Gayathri has appeared before us
through Video Conference, who, on enquiry, has deposed that she is
in her grandparents' house and her brother alone is with him at the
time of hearing her.
6. This Court smells rat in this case, as different versions are
being spoken to by the counsel and the parties. Initially, when this
case was called in the morning, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, on instruction from Police, has informed this Court that
the detenue is in Chennai and would be produced before this Court
in the Chambers in the afternoon. To the contrary, learned counsel
for the 3rd Respondent has stated that the girl is safely residing in
Erode in her parents' house. However, on interrogation with the
detenue over Video Conference, she has stated that she is in the
village of her grandparents. It is not known as to how the
Respondent Police gave a wrong instruction to the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that the girl is in Chennai, when she
herself affirmed that she is in Erode and in that event, the
Respondent Police has attempted to play with the Court. Moreover,
the petitioner has also levelled certain allegations against Police
Officials in his letter dated 15.05.2022 and the manner in which they
acted today supports his version. That apart, in the afternoon,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also brought to the
attention of this Court about the voice message from an Advocate. As
there is a lot of suspicion, revolving around this case, we, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
going into the issue of maintainability raised by the 3rd respondent
and taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and others
[W.P.(Civil) No.231 of 2010] decided on 27.03.2018, are inclined to
issue following directions:
i) The Detenue, viz., Gayathri, 3rd Respondent and the
Petitioner are directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police,
Erode District on 10.06.2022 at 11:00am for an enquiry and after
enquiry, a detailed report shall be submitted to this Court by the
Superintendent of Police on the next date of hearing;
ii) The Superintendent of Police shall also enquire about the
allegations made against the Police by the Petitioner in his
communication dated 15.05.2022.
List this matter on 14.06.2022."
3. Today, Mr.N.Duraisamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk
Police Station [Mobile No.83000 39736], is present.
4. Pursuant to the above, the Superintendent of Police, Erode District,
has filed a status report dated 14.06.2022 wherein in paragraph No.2, he has
stated as follows:
"2. I most respectfully submit that, as per order of this
Hon'ble Court dated 08.06.2022, I enquired the detenue viz.,
Gayathri and recorded her statement on 10.06.2022. She stated that,
she is staying along with her father at her own Will, and no one had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
either coerced or illegally confined her and she further stated that,
she was at her liberty. She stated that, she is acquainted with the
petitioner and has spoken with him out of sympathy, considering the
fact that the petitioner had lost his parents and further stated that, she
could not attend the Hon'ble High Court on 08.06.2022 owing to her
illness and thus she attended the Court through Video Conferencing
and also stated that, she is willing to stay along with her parents."
Thus, from a reading of the above, it is seen that the detenue was merely an
acquaintance of the petitioner and nothing more.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the
present petition.
6. Since this Court has issued certain directions in the order dated
08.06.2022, we are of the view that the action taken by the police should
have to be formally recorded before closing this petition.
7. As regards the directions issued by this Court to the Superintendent
of Police to enquire into the allegations made against the police by the
petitioner in his communication dated 15.05.2022, in paragraph No.9 of the
status report dated 14.06.2022, it is stated as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
"9. I submit that, after due enquiry, a 3(a) charge under Tamil
Nadu Public Servants Disciplinary Conduct Rules was issued against
the delinquent officers calling for an explanation about the incident.
I assure that due action will be taken in this regard and sincerely
assure that no such incidents will recur in the future."
We are satisfied with the steps taken by the Superintendent of Police.
8. Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent,
submitted that the detenue is married to one V.K.Magesh on 24.08.2022 and
is leading a happy married life.
In the aforestated circumstances, nothing survives for further
consideration in the present petition. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus
Petition is closed.
[P.N.P., J] [R.H., J]
05.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Erode Taluk Police Station,
Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 05.09.2022
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
R.HEMALATHA, J
H.C.P.No.980 of 2022
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
