Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs The Director General Of Prison on 20 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
2025:MHC:839
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.P(MD)No.4670 of 2025
Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The Director General of Prison,
Directorate of the Central Prison,
Tamil Nadu Prison,
Veanals Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Madurai Range,
Madurai Central Prison Campus,
Madurai City – 625 016.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City – 625 016. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in NO.
132/Uo.tha.2/2024, dated 5.2.2025 and to quash the same as illegal
and consequently to direct the second respondent to release the
convict prisoner namely, Kalidoss, son of Senthurpandi, C.P.No.
5823, aged about 37 years on parole for a period of 30 days
ordinary leave or the period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Addl.Public Prosecutor
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J
AND
R.POORNIMA.,J
This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his
proceedings in NO.132/Uo.tha.2/2024, dated 5.2.2025 and to
quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second
respondent to release the convict prisoner namely, Kalidoss, son
of Senthurpandi, C.P.No.5823, aged about 37 years on parole for a
period of 30 days ordinary leave or the period fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The impugned order indicates that the life convict had
involved in a case registered in Crime No.67 of 2022, for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., while he was
in parole in an earlier occasion. Therefore the request for 30 days
ordinary leave to attend the ailing mother and to arrange for the
future of the convict’s children has been rejected vide
proceedings, dated 5.2.2025.
4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even
after the case registered in Cr.No.67/2022, the life convict was
granted leave by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13002 of 2024, dated
3.7.2024 for a period of ten days and the convict had duly reported
before the Jail Authorities after expiry of the leave period without
any blemish. Therefore, the pendency of the case registered for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC cannot be a
bar to grant leave. He also submitted that the said case had
already been disposed of in view of Petition filed under Section
320 of Cr.P.C by the Petitioner’s son.
5.To verify the said fact, this Court adjourned the matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned
counsel for the Petitioner had furnished a copy of the judgment
passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi in
C.C.NO.102/2023, dated 26.06.2023 arisintg out of Crime No.
67/2022.
6.A perusal of the judgment indicates that the Petition filed
under Section 320 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned Magistate
on 31.5.2023, however, the learned Judge recorded the evidence of
prosecution witness and find that accused not guilty and
rendered a acquittal judgment on 26.6.2023.
7.Considering the fact that on the date of considering the
leave application, there is no criminal case pending against the
convict. While so, citing the case which had already been
disposed of is not a proper reason for rejecting the application.
Therefore this Court finds that the order, dated 5.2.2025 passed
by the Prison Authorities which is impugned in this Writ Petition
is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The respondents
are directed to consider the representation, dated 16.12.2024
afresh and pass orders within a period of two weeks from today.
8.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]
20.03.2025
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
1.The Director General of Prison,
Directorate of the Central Prison,
Tamil Nadu Prison,
Veanals Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Madurai Range,
Madurai Central Prison Campus,
Madurai City – 625 016.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City – 625 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA ,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
