Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2885 (MAD)

M. Pitchammal v. Superintendent of Police

2014-08-26

S.MANIKUMAR, V.S.RAVI

body2014
Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents 1 and 2 to produce the corpse of the second daughter Premalatha, aged about 28 years. 2. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that she has two daughters. The alleged detenue is the second daughter. There was a marriage between the alleged detenue and respondent No.3 in 1997 in a Registrar's Office. Sreedhana articles were given. In the year 2001, when the petitioner went to her daughter's house, she was not present and the petitioner asked her son-in-law, respondent No.3, about her whereabouts. The third respondent replied that the alleged detenue was kidnapped by respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a complaint to Mulakkarai Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.61 of 2001 for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. Pursuant to which, the Inspector of Police, Mulakkarai Police Station, conducted an enquiry with the third respondent, mother and brother of the fourth respondent respectively therein. Statements have been recorded. According to the petitioner, till today, the Inspector of Police, Mulakkarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District, respondent No.2, has not taken any action. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. On instructions, Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that about 13 years ago, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.61 of 2001 under Section 366 I.P.C. on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mulakkarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District, respondent No.2 that after conducting an enquiry, the criminal case was closed. Now, the writ petition has been filed for Habeas Corpus alleging detention. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed both on the ground of laches and on the ground that the complaint made in Crime No.61 of 2001 had already been closed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials on record. 6. The fact that the petitioner has lodged a complaint in the year 2001 which has been registered in Crime No.61 of 2001 for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mulakkarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District, second respondent herein and that after enquiry, it has been closed, has not been disclosed in the supporting affidavit. On the contrary, the petitioner has contended that respondent No.2 has not taken effective steps to secure the alleged detenue. Allegations of kidnapping has been made by the petitioner. 7. Perusal of the statement of respondent No.3, husband of the alleged detenue, enclosed at page No.3 of the typed set of papers, shows that the alleged detenue had gone for an interview with respondent No.4, and that on 24.07.2001, respondent No.4 had taken the alleged detenue. For brevity, a portion of the statement of Mr. A. Kannan, respondent No.3/husband of the alleged detenue, is reproduced: (“Tamil”) 8. The said statement has been recorded on 24.10.2010. Petitioner, Pitchammal, is also aware of the above said fact. After the closure of the criminal complaint in Crime No.61 of 2001, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mulakkarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District, and after thirteen years, this present Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed. 9. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 have not taken any steps for nearly thirteen years and now alleging detention habeas corpus petition has been filed. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has not taken any steps, after the closure of the complaint. Filing of habeas corpus petition after thirteen years alleging detention, as against respondent No. 4, cannot be entertained. Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.