Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1849 (MAD)

G. Srinivasalu v. State

2016-06-08

S.NAGAMUTHU, V.BHARATHIDASAN

body2016
ORDER S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The petitioner is the father of one Ms. G. Jyothi, aged hardly 16 years 11 months. Her date of birth is 11.06.2009. The detenue was studying in a local educational institution. It is alleged that on 24.01.2016, the second respondent eve teased her. That was reported by the detenue to her parents. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police in this regard. The second respondent was called for enquiry and he was warned. 2. Again the second respondent did not stop with that and he kidnapped the detenue on 06.04.2016 at 2.00 pm. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police in this regard. The first respondent registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2016 for girl missing. Though, the petitioner was informed that the investigation was in progress, since, the minor girl was not secured, he was forced to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been pending from 29.04.2016 onwards. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also earlier had taken notice. 3. Today, when this Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner and his wife Mrs. Laxmi made appearance before this Court. The first respondent and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gummudipoondi, Mr. Sivalingam also made appearance. The first respondent produced the detenue minor girl Ms. Jyothi before this Court. 4. When we enquired Ms. Jyothi, she told us that she was not kidnapped by the second respondent and she was staying at her Aunt's house. This was disputed by the petitioner and his wife. They told that she did not stay at the sister's house of the wife of the petitioner at all. They further said that the girl was virtually kidnapped by the second respondent and they suspect that she was sexually exploited by him. They further submitted to this Court that even today, the girl was brought to the Court by the Police accompanied by the father of the second respondent. We made extensive enquiry with the first respondent and one Sub Inspector who was also present before this Court. We expressed our dissatisfaction over the way in which the case has been handled. We have the benefit of going through the case diary. We made extensive enquiry with the first respondent and one Sub Inspector who was also present before this Court. We expressed our dissatisfaction over the way in which the case has been handled. We have the benefit of going through the case diary. Though it is stated by the minor girl that she was staying at her Aunt's house, no investigation whatsoever was done in respect of the same to verify whether it is true or not and to verify whether she has been tutored to say so or out of fear for someone, she is saying so. When such a serious allegation is made by the parents of the detenue, there are reasons to believe that the minor girl was sexually exploited, the investigation should have been taken in a serious manner. The petitioner and his wife further submitted that they found the minor girl was wearing Thali and Metti, showing the marital status that she was already married. 5. But today, when the minor girl appeared before this Court, she is not wearing Thali and Metti. Even the Inspector of Police also submitted to this Court that earlier, the minor girl was wearing Thali and Metti. These materials are sufficient to make thorough investigation as it appears that the child has been abused and she has been tutored to tell a different story before this Court. 6. When this was pointed out, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after taking some time before this Court, contacted the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, and later informed this Court that the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, has decided to transfer this case and to entrust the same to one Mr. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur, for further investigation. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that one Mrs. Saraswathi, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvallur would assist Mr. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur in the investigation of this case. The said statement is recorded. 8. In our considered view, since, the detenue happens to be a minor child, thorough investigation shall be done by Mr. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur, in accordance with law. 9. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur in the investigation of this case. The said statement is recorded. 8. In our considered view, since, the detenue happens to be a minor child, thorough investigation shall be done by Mr. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur, in accordance with law. 9. Now, turning to the custody of the minor child, the petitioner and his wife eventually made a request not to entrust the detenue to them because they are poor people having no where with all to keep a close watch always on the minor girl/detenue. They further submitted that the second respondent and his men may again kidnap the minor girl because, already they found the girl wearing Thali and Metti. They would further submit that keeping the minor child in their custody will be a big problem for them and it will not safe for the minor child also. Therefore, as per the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Shivakumar V. State ( 2011(5) CTC 689 ), we are forced to send the child to be kept in the Government Children's Home for Girls, Kellys, Chennai. The Superintendent, Government Children's Home for Girls, Kellys, Chennai, shall not permit anyone to see the child, except her parents. 10. Registry is directed to list this matter on 22.06.2016. On that date, the minor girl shall be produced by the Superintendent, Government Children's Home for Girls, Kellys, Chennai, before this Court at 10.30 am. 11. The petitioner and his wife are also directed to be present before this Court on that date. Mr. Selvakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur is directed to file a status report on that date about the further investigation done in this case.