(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Seeking a writ of habeas corpus, one Mr.V.Ponnaiah has brought forth this application.
2.The petitioner is present in Court along with his counsel. The alleged detenue is also present.
3.The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that his daughter Tamilselvi was found missing from 29.10.2008. A complaint was given on the very same day to the first respondent, but for that no receipt was issued. Under such circumstances, he sent the complaint through registered post to the respondents 1 and 2. But, no effective steps have been taken. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.
4.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner is present. The first respondent produced the detenue before this Court. She is Tamilselvi. She is also enquired. According to her, she was born on 23.10.1988; the 3rd respondent K.Suresh @ Dilipan is her husband; the marriage between them was registered on 31.10.2008 with the registration department and now they are living as husband and wife. Thus, the allegation that the detenue was kidnapped by the third respondent with the assistance of fourth respondent falls to ground and now she is living with her husband.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the very same allegations found in the affidavit filed in support of this application. It is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that a case came to be registered in Crime No.354 of 2008 under
Sections 365 and
366 I.P.C. based on the complaint received from the petitioner on 30.12.2008.
6.The Court enquired the alleged detenue. From the submissions made by the detenue, it is quite evident that she was born on 30.12.2008 and thus she is a major. According to the detenue, she eloped with the third respondent due to love affair; marriage took place between them on 30.12.2008 and the same has also been registered and now they are living together as husband and wife. Under such circumstances, she was neither kidnapped nor kept under the illegal custody of the third respondent. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner that she was kidnapped and kept under illegal custody turned to be otherwise. Under such circumstances, taking into consideration the factual position and that too she is a major, this Court is of the considered opinion that no question of issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would arise and the detenue is set at liberty.
7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.
sj To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Devadhanapatti Police Station, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.