JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramesh, Sunder Mohan, JJ. (Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 3rd respondent to produce the body or person of under trial prisoner, namely, Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, before this Hon'ble Court and direct the 3rd respondent to provide the adequate treatment to the said under trial prisoner and remove them from the solitary confinement and transfer to High Security Block-1. Further direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 to 5 in pursuant to the petitioner representation dated 21.02.2024.) 1. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Prison Authorities have used excessive force on an under trial prisoner viz., Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, who is a Srilankan National arrested by the NCB/MDS Madurai in C.C.No.370/21 and confined in the same block in which the petitioner's husband was confined, owing to which, he has sustained bodily injuries and hence, she seeks for medical attention to him and to remove him from the solitary confinement. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this prisoner has been kept under solitary confinement and apart from his Advocate, he was not permitted to meet his relatives. Since the injuries caused to the prisoner are severe, he seeks for immediate medical treatment to him. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the Medical Report of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, dated 08.02.2024, of one of the prisoner, namely Pushparaj (RP.No.92529/2022), which evidences that there were no external or internal injuries in the body of the prisoner and that his vitals are stable and in good condition. He further submitted that no excessive force was employed on the body of the prisoner and that when a surprise inspection was conducted in the prison cells, several mobile phones with sim cards, chargers, etc., were recovered. Based on such recovery, the Jailer had preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.66/2024 under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, 1894. 4. The facts, as put forth by the petitioner, have been denied by the respondents. Based on such recovery, the Jailer had preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.66/2024 under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, 1894. 4. The facts, as put forth by the petitioner, have been denied by the respondents. While the Prison Authorities claimed that owing to the seizure of the mobile phones, sim cards, etc., from the prison cells, a complaint has been given and no physical force was used on them, the petitioner claims that her Advocate had witnessed the prisoner in the prison and had seen the injuries. 5. This Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not venture to adjudicate such disputed facts. However, the Court will not also be a mute spectator when certain allegations are made of excessive physical force being used on prisoners. In order to strike a balance and safeguard the rights of the prisoner, we are of the view that the prisoner named in the present petition i.e., Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, can be referred to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, with a direction to send a copy of the medical report to the petitioner also. 6. There is yet another aspect in the matter, which may require to be addressed. Under Rule 300 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, when the Superintendent of Prisons is of the opinion that some of the offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) mentioned therein are established against any prisoner, he is required to refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the procedures contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, in cases, when the Superintendent is of the view that when a prisoner has committed any act that would constitute a prison offence and an offence under the IPC, he is entitled to exercise his discretion to either use his own powers of punishment prescribed under Chapter-XVIII or in the alternate to move the Magistrate possessing jurisdiction to enquire into it in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In the instant case, the Superintendent has exercised his discretion to prefer a complaint before the jurisdictional Police, which has been registered in Crime No.66/2024, dated 04.02.2024 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station. 7. In the instant case, the Superintendent has exercised his discretion to prefer a complaint before the jurisdictional Police, which has been registered in Crime No.66/2024, dated 04.02.2024 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station. Having opted to give the complaint, he had foregone his discretion of exercising his powers of punishment under the Prison Rules. If that be so, the prisoner, who is the subject matter in the petition, cannot be deprived of any of the privileges to which he is entitled to under the Prison Rules. Likewise, the Prison Authorities cannot now impose any punishment against the prisoner in connection with the incident, which is the subject matter of Crime No.66/2024. In case any of the privileges have been deprived to the prisoner for his alleged involvement in connection with Crime No.66/2024, the same shall be restored forthwith. 8. In the light of the above findings, there shall be a direction to the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, to subject the prisoner, to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, forthwith. In case any medical aid is required to the prisoner, after examination, the Hospital shall extend the required medical aid. Likewise, all privileges, to which the prisoner is entitled to under the Prison Rules, shall also be extended to him forthwith. With these directions, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.