Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 879 (MAD)

G. Perumal v. Commissioner of Police, Vepery

2014-04-09

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mrs.K.R.Vairam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for R4. In view of nature of disposal of this petition, respondents 5 to 7 are not required to be heard at this stage. 2. The petitioner, who is the brother of detenue, has moved this petition for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to produce his sister / detenue, namely, V.Parimalam, aged 27 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. 3. According to the petitioner / brother of detenue, after filing a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk on 19.12.2013 about her missing sister, one more complaint was also lodged by him with J-2, Police Station, Adayar, Chennai on 19.03.2014. But, till now, she has not been traced out and it was informed that she had gone with 4th and 5th respondents. He has submitted that the detenue is having two sons, left her house for domestic works and the 5th respondent, under the pretext of providing employment, pushed her to work as a sex worker for a wrongful gain. The 4th respondent, who was a former President in Moottai Thookum Vyabarigal Sangel, Blue Towel, along with 5th and 7th respondents cheated his sister and ruined her life, as a result of which, she has become a drug addict and 6th respondent is responsible behind all the illegal and immoral activities. Having found no further progress in the matter in tracing out his sister, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the above direction. 4. On the above pleadings, we have heard learned counsel on either side, including the learned counsel appearing for R4. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the detenue, namely, V.Parimalam before this Court, accompanied with the Investigating Officer. 6. On being enquired with the detenue V.Parimalam, she has stated that she is 28 years old, married to one P.Velu and has two sons, namely Jayakumar (aged 13 years) and Gokul (aged 7 years). She has further stated that in order to eke out her livelihood, she had visited several places for her as well as her children's survival, since her husband is an alcoholic and at present, her children are under the custody of the petitioner. She has further stated that in order to eke out her livelihood, she had visited several places for her as well as her children's survival, since her husband is an alcoholic and at present, her children are under the custody of the petitioner. She has submitted that she is now working at the Women's Hostel of Eva Velu Arts College, Thiruvannamalai and earning a sum of Rs.2,700/ per month. However, she has consistently and categorically pleaded before this Court that she may be allowed to continue in the same employment and she is not inclined to go with the petitioner, by stating in additional that averments and allegations made in the petition are not correct. 7. It is seen from the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent police that the sister of petitioner, while working as a Dish Washer for three months, got acquainted with another female co-worker and was introduced to the respondents 4 to 7, who, under the pretext of offering her a good job, forced her to work as a sex worker by torturing her. It is further stated in the complaint that 4th respondent kept his sister unreachable by claiming her as his wife and whereabouts of his sister are also not known. For the welfare of her sons, who are at present under his control, he, after preferring a complaint with the respondent police on 19.12.2013, is before this Court by way of present petition, seeking her custody. 8. Allegations made against respondents 4 to 7 are to be raised by the petitioner before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law and this Court has jurisdiction only to deal with production of detenue and setting her at liberty to choose her own way of life. On enquiry with the detenue V.Parimalam, it is crystal clear that she is not at all prepared to go with the petitioner and has opted to continue her employment in the same college. Once the detenue is major, this Court has to give paramount consideration to her choice and has no authority to interfere with her freedom by way of putting any type of barricade. 9. Once the detenue is major, this Court has to give paramount consideration to her choice and has no authority to interfere with her freedom by way of putting any type of barricade. 9. Therefore, considering the fact that thedetenue, namely, V.Parimalam, who is 28 years old and working at the Women's Hostel of Eva Velu Arts College, Thiruvannamalai, thereby earning a sum of Rs.2,700/ per month for her livelihood, has expressed her inclination to stick on to the said job in the very same college, we have no other option but to allow her to act as per her own wish. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of, by setting the detenue Mrs.V.Parimalam at liberty to continue her employment as per her own desire, by granting liberty to the parties to work out their remedy in respect of their grievances and allegations made before the appropriate forum as per law.