Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr. V.K. Elangho, a practising advocate, has brought forth this application stating that he was acting as Guardian for a student in Sriram Engineering College run by Sriram Educational Trust. When he had an occasion to go there, he got acquaintance with Ms. Anitha, who is the daughter of the third respondent herein and Lecturer in the said College and in particular point of time, it developed into love and they decided to marry. On coming to know about this, there are threatening calls from the third respondent with dire consequences. Now he came to know that she has actually been in the illegal custody of the third respondent-father against her will. Under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to move this application. 2. After the habeas corpus petition was admitted, notice was ordered to all the respondents. A report was received from the Principal of the said College that she left the services of the College by resigning the post of Lecturer. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed before this Court a report received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, which came as a result of the enquiry conducted by him. The petition sent by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Chennai was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct enquiry. On enquiry, the report is submitted. From the report, it is found that all the allegations found in the affidavit are false. A letter dated 17.9.2010 written by Anitha to the Sub Inspector of Police is also placed in the hands of the Court. The petitioner disputed the signature found therein. 3. From the perusal of the letter, it is quite clear that the petitioner used to visit the College as Guardian of a student. He got the phone number of the Lecturer and used to phone her and according to her, she had no occasion to love him and it was one side. The petitioner disputed the signature found therein. 3. From the perusal of the letter, it is quite clear that the petitioner used to visit the College as Guardian of a student. He got the phone number of the Lecturer and used to phone her and according to her, she had no occasion to love him and it was one side. Apart from that, she also reported the same to the College Principal, who, in turn, called the parents of Anitha and information was to be that she did not want to work in the College and she resigned the post and living with the parents and all the allegations are false. It is further added in the letter that since she was not married, her name would be spoiled. 4. After seeing all this, the Court is of the considered opinion that nothing is available for the petitioner to proceed further or continue to keep the habeas corpus petition pending and this Court has no other option than to dispose of the habeas corpus petition. The habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly.