JUDGMENT :- M. JAICHANDREN, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the first and the second respondents to produce the detenue, namely, N.Divya, the daughter of the petitioner, said to have been illegally detained by the third respondent, before this court, and to set her liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, N.Divya, aged about 20 years. The petitioner has two children, N.Divya and N.Manisekar. On 7.11.2012 the petitioner’s husband, late Nagaraj, had committed suicide due to the fact that his daughter, N.Divya, had married one Elavarasan, son of Elango, the third respondent herein. 3. It has been further stated that the alleged marriage between N.Divya and the third respondent is illegal, as the third respondent is a minor and he had not completed the age of 21 years, for contracting a valid marriage, as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. The petitioner has alleged that her daughter, namely, N.Divya, who was studying in Om Sakthi Nursing College, Dharmapuri, had been abducted by the third respondent and certain other persons, for ransom, on 8.10.2012. In such circumstances, Nagaraj, the husband of the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the second respondent, on 12.10.2012. As no action was taken by the second respondent, a complaint had been filed before the first respondent, on 20.11.2012. Thereafter, the second respondent had registered a case, in Crime No.313 of 2012, under Sections 147, 342, 506(i) and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 5. The petitioner has further stated that her husband, namely, Nagaraj, had committed suicide due to the harassment of the third respondent and certain other persons. Based on a complaint made, alleging that certain persons had induced the husband of the petitioner to commit suicide, a case had been registered against 13 persons, including, Perumal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Krishnapuram, Dharmapuri District, in Crime No.294 of 2012, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no action had been taken. Since no action had been taken, in respect of the said case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, in W.P.No.5656 of 2013, for the transferring of the investigation to a different authority. 6. However, no action had been taken. Since no action had been taken, in respect of the said case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, in W.P.No.5656 of 2013, for the transferring of the investigation to a different authority. 6. The petitioner has further stated that, on 23.11.2012, the detenue, namely, N.Divya, had been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, and thereafter, she had been set at liberty. However, the whereabouts of the detenue was not known to the petitioner. While so, the detenue had contacted the petitioner, through a cell phone, stating that her life was in danger, as she has been threatened by the third respondent and his henchmen. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a complaint to the first respondent, on 9.3.2013. However, no action had been taken, pursuant to the said complaint, in spite of the several requests made by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has further stated that, due to the incidents that had taken place, she was under severe mental agony and that her health had been failing. Since the detenu, namely, N.Divya, has been illegally detained by the third respondent she has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court, praying for the reliefs as stated therein. 8. An affidavit, dated 3.7.2013, had been filed by the third respondent stating that he was in love with N.Divya, daughter of Nagarajan, for about three years. N.Divya belongs to Vanniyar Community, which is the dominant community in the area concerned. The third respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. When the parents of N.Divya came to know the fact that she was in love with the third respondent, they had made arrangements to get her married to some other person. W hen N.Divya came to know about the arrangements being made for her marriage, she had walked out of her house and had married the third respondent, in a Siva Temple, at Tirupathi, on 10.10.2012. 9. It had been further stated that the lives of N.Divya and the third respondent were in danger, as her parents, relatives and their henchmen were searching for them. Therefore, they had approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, on 14.10.2012, and had made a representation seeking adequate protection for their lives. While so, the father of N.Divya had died, on 7.11.2012, under mysterious circumstances. Therefore, they had approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, on 14.10.2012, and had made a representation seeking adequate protection for their lives. While so, the father of N.Divya had died, on 7.11.2012, under mysterious circumstances. Thereafter, the cadres of the Pattali Makkal Katchi and the members of the Vanniyar Sangam had ransacked and torched more than three hundred houses of dalit families living in Natham, Anna Nagar and Kondampatti, in Dharmapuri District. 10. It had been further stated that due to the undue pressure exerted by the members of the Pattali Makkal Katchi and the Vanniyar Sangam, the police had been compelled to produce N.Divya before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, on 24.12.2012. She had made a statement before the Magistrate concerned stating that she was not abducted by any one and that she had voluntarily left her parental home and was living with the family of the third respondent, willingly. After recording the statement made by N.Divya, she was allowed to go along with the members of the family of the third respondent. Thereafter, Thenmozhi, the mother of N.Divya, had been talking to her, by phone. While so, she had preferred a complaint before the Krishnapuram Police Station and had moved the Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court, in H.C.P. No.421 of 2013, alleging that her daughter N.Divya was under the illegal detention of the third respondent. 11. It had been further stated that N.Divya had appeared before this Court, on 19.3.2013, and had stated that she was not under the illegal custody of the third respondent and that the complaint given by her mother was a false complaint. Thereafter, N.Divya and her mother had appeared before this court, on 27.3.2013, when she had clearly stated that she was not under the illegal custody or detention of any one, and that she was staying in the house of the third respondent, along with his family members, voluntarily, and that the third respondent was taking care of her, with a lot of love and affection. The said statement made by N.Divya had been recorded by this court, on 3.4.2013, and she was allowed to go, as per her wish. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 6.6.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had come to the house of the third respondent to see her daughter. The said statement made by N.Divya had been recorded by this court, on 3.4.2013, and she was allowed to go, as per her wish. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 6.6.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had come to the house of the third respondent to see her daughter. She was cordial and frank when she was talking to the members of the family of the third respondent. She had stated that the complaint lodged by her and the present Habeas Corpus Petition filed by her, before this court, had not been done voluntarily, as she had been forced to initiate such action, by the Pattali Makkal Katchi party men and the members of the Vanniyar Sangam. Though the petitioner was ready to accept the marriage of her daughter, with the third respondent, she could not do so, due to the threat she was facing from the men belonging to the said party and the sangam. While so, on 4.6.2013, when the third respondent had gone to the house of his friend, at Thoppur, after dropping N.Divya at the railway station, from where she had taken an autorickshaw to reach the bus stand, there was a telephone call from Kalaiselvi, the sister of the petitioner. Kalaiselvi had stated that the health condition of the petitioner had deteriorated and that she had been admitted in Kavitha Hospital, at Dharmapuri. She had asked N.Divya to come to the hospital, immediately. In fact, the petitioner had not been admitted in the said hospital. However, when N.Divya had reached the hospital she had been abducted by the party men belonging to Pattali Makkal Katchi, with the help of the petitioner and her sister, namely, Kalaiselvi. In such circumstances, the third respondent had lodged a complaint before the B-1 Police Station, Dharmapuri, on 4.6.2013. A First Information Report has been registered by the police, in F.I.R.No.353/2013. 12. It had been further stated that on 6.6.2013, when the present Habeas Corpus Petition was listed for hearing, the third respondent was shocked and surprised to note that N.Divya had been brought and produced before the court, by the Pattali Makkal Katchi party men. She looked very sad and tired and she was in fear of those who had brought her to the court. There were more than 50 persons surrounding her when she arrived at the court premises. She looked very sad and tired and she was in fear of those who had brought her to the court. There were more than 50 persons surrounding her when she arrived at the court premises. Thus, it could be noted that she was under tremendous pressure from the party men and the hench men belonging to the Vanniyar Sangam. In such circumstances, she has made a statement before this court stating that she wanted to be with her mother, for the time being. Thereafter, the matter had been adjourned to 1.7.2013. At the end of the court proceedings she had given an interview to the press persons, stating that she was living happily with the family of the third respondent, making it clear that she had been forced to leave the house of the third respondent, due to the undue mental pressure exerted on her. She had also stated that she would sacrifice her marriage for the sake of the society that is caste obsessed, and for the sake of her mother. Thus, it was clear that she had made certain statements before this court and before the press persons, due to the pressure mounted on her, by the various persons belonging to the Vanniyar community. N.Divya and her mother were under the custody of the caste based political leaders, and they had also arranged for their stay, at Chennai. Again, when the matter was listed for hearing, on 1.7.2013, she had expressed herself, with tears in her eyes stating that she was happy with the third respondent and her family members and that she was ready and willing to live with the third respondent, if her mother would accept the marriage. She had also stated that she was afraid for the lives of her mother and her brother. At the time when she was brought to the court some important persons belonging to the Pattali Makkal Katchi would also come with her. She was sad and she was also in a disturbed condition after making her statement before this court. Thus, it was clear that N.Divya was under serious threat and that she was forced to make certain decisions, which were not voluntary in nature. Therefore, this court may issue appropriate directions, in the cause of justice, and to order counseling to the detenue, N.Divya, by qualified counselors, to enable her to take independent decisions. Thus, it was clear that N.Divya was under serious threat and that she was forced to make certain decisions, which were not voluntary in nature. Therefore, this court may issue appropriate directions, in the cause of justice, and to order counseling to the detenue, N.Divya, by qualified counselors, to enable her to take independent decisions. It had also been prayed that the detenue, N.Divya, should be produced before this court and examined, scientifically, and that this court may pass an order handing over the custody of the detenue to the family of the third respondent, who is her legally married husband. 13. At this stage of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated, categorically, that the petitioner has made an endorsement, on the court bundle, stating that she is withdrawing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by her, in view of the fact that her daughter, N.Divya, had come back to her. Such an endorsement had been made by the petitioner, on 3.7.2013, when the matter had been listed for hearing before this court. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had prayed that this court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition, as nothing survives in the said petition, as the detenue had returned to her mother, who is the petitioner therein. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that this court may not grant the permission to the petitioner to withdraw the present Habeas Corpus Petition, as prayed for by her, by way of an endorsement made by her. The learned counsel had further submitted that this court should go deeper into the matter and conduct a detailed enquiry, with regard to the misrepresentation made by the petitioner before this court. This court may also cause an enquiry to find out as to whether the statements made by the detenue, N.Divya, before this court, had been made by her, voluntarily, or if such statements had been made under coercion and undue pressure exerted on her by the Pattali Makkal Katchi party men and the members of the Vanniyar Sangam. This court may also cause an enquiry to find out as to whether the statements made by the detenue, N.Divya, before this court, had been made by her, voluntarily, or if such statements had been made under coercion and undue pressure exerted on her by the Pattali Makkal Katchi party men and the members of the Vanniyar Sangam. It is also necessary for this court to find out as to whether the death of the third respondent, on 4.7.2013, is a cold blooded murder, or a suicide, as alleged by the police authorities. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had also submitted that N.Divya should be given the necessary counseling, by qualified counselors, as she is under severe distress and mental agony. It had also been submitted that she should be examined by this court to find out the truth behind the recent press statements made by the detenue, N.Divya, stating that she was not willing to live with the third respondent. He had also stated that a CBI enquiry should be ordered into the death of the respondent, which had taken place, on 4.7.2013. He had further submitted that, from the news items published in the various newspapers and in the magazines, regarding the statements made by N.Divya, it could be seen that there has been a sift in her attitude towards the third respondent, due to the threat, coercion and pressure exerted by the members of her family and their henchmen. In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner for the necessary permission to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition ought to be rejected by this court. 16. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended that it is not open to the counsel representing the third respondent to obtain directions from this court in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, especially, when the petitioner seeks to withdraw the same. He had further submitted that the statements made by N.Divya are voluntary in nature. There is no threat, coercion or undue pressure exerted on the petitioner or on her daughter, N.Divya, as alleged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 17. He had further submitted that the statements made by N.Divya are voluntary in nature. There is no threat, coercion or undue pressure exerted on the petitioner or on her daughter, N.Divya, as alleged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 17. The learned counsel had stated that the allegations made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent that the Pattali Makkal Katchi party men and the members of the Vanniyar Sangam had played a major role, in respect of the statements made by N.Divya, are false and frivolous in nature. He had further submitted that this court should permit the petitioner to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petiiton, as the detenue had returned to the care and custody of her mother, the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition, willingly. All the allegations made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent are mere figments of imagination. There is no truth in the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. Further, nothing survives in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, as the third respondent had died, on 4.7.2013, and as the petitioner does not want to pursue the matter in view of the fact hat her daughter, N.Divya, had come back to her on her own volition. 18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 had stated that nothing survives in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, in view of the fact that the third respondent had died, on 4.7.2013, and in view of the fact that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition. 19. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the third respondent, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be denied the permission prayed for by her, for the withdrawal of the Habeas Corpus Petition, especially, in view of the fact that the detenue, namely, N.Divya, had made certain categorical statements clearly indicating that she would like to be with her mother. She had stated that she had gone to see her mother, voluntarily, and that she was going along with her mother, willingly, without any undue influence being cast on her, by anyone. It is also not in dispute that she is a major. 20. She had stated that she had gone to see her mother, voluntarily, and that she was going along with her mother, willingly, without any undue influence being cast on her, by anyone. It is also not in dispute that she is a major. 20. It is also noted that the third respondent had died, on 4.7.2013, during the pendency of the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Further, it is not for this court to conduct an elaborate and detailed enquiry into the various circumstances that had culminated in the death of Nagaraj, the father of the detenue, and in respect of the unfortunate demise of the third respondent, in the present proceedings. It is for the authorities concerned to cause an enquiry to find out the truth behind the death of Nagaraj, the father of N.Divya and her husband E.Elavarasan, the third respondent in the present Habeas Corpus Petition and in respect of the other related incidents that had taken place. Further, such issues may arise for the consideration of the appropriate courts of law, at the relevant stage. However, it is clear that this court would have only a limited jurisdiction, while dealing with the present Habeas Corpus Petition, especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner is inclined to withdraw the same. Therefore, it is not open to this court to pass elaborate or detailed orders in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition, based on the endorsement made by her, on 3.7.2013. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed, as withdrawn. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the parties concerned to seek their reliefs, if any, before the appropriate authority or forum, if so advised, in the manner known to law.