Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

S Nirmala vs The Inspector Of Police And Others

Madras High Court|28 June, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.06.2017 CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nooty.Ramamohana Rao and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Abdul Quddhose
H.C.P. No. 934 of 2017
S. Nirmala ..Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, J-4, Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppery, Chennai -7.
3. Ram Kumar ...Respondents Prayer:- This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the 1st respondent to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter Shamili before this Court and hand over her to the petitioner's custody.
For Petitioner : Mr.G. Ashok Kumar For Respondent 1&2 : Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, APP For Respondent 3 : NA
O R D E R
Order of the Court was delivered by Nooty.Ramamohana Rao,J. Pursuant to the notice issued by us, on 20th June 2017, the Police at Kotturpuram have done a good job in producing the alleged detenue as also the third respondent herein.
2. We had interacted with the alleged detenue, who was a 22 years old, graduate in Engineering. Having passed the said course, she is fairly intelligent and articulate. She informed us that the third respondent has not abducted her as alleged or thought to be so, by her parents, but, she on her own, gone along with the third respondent, as both of them have fallen in love with each other. It appears that the third respondent is known to the family for a long time.
3. In the given circumstances and after interacting with the alleged detenue, we are convinced that there is no coercion or inducement behind the alleged detenue leaving her parental home, that decision was apparently taken by the detenue on her own.
4. In the given circumstances, the relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition could not be accorded and hence this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
5. The alleged detenue is at liberty to go about leading her life on terms which are suitable to her.
(N.R.R.J.) (A.Q.J.) 28.06.2017 Index:Yes/No ak/tsi To
1. The Inspector of Police, J-4, Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppery, Chennai -7.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Nooty.Ramamohana Rao.J.
& Abdul Quddhose.J.,
ak/tsi
H.C.P. No. 934 of 2017
28.06.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S Nirmala vs The Inspector Of Police And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
28 June, 2017
Judges
  • Nooty Ramamohana Rao
  • Abdul Quddhose