BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(Md.No.1006 of 2014 Senthilkumar .Petitioner versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District.
3.Rasu @ Veeraiah 4.Alagappan .Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the fiRs.respondent to produce the detenue Shanmuga Priya, daughter of Chokkalingam, aged about 19 years from the illegal custody of the third and fourth respondents before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susi Kumar for Mr.S.Mahendrapathi For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahanarajendran 1 and 2 Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR , J.) The petitioner has sought for Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the corpus of Shanmuga Priya, daughter of Chockalingam.
According to the petitioner, he is a part-time Lecturer in Government College, Aranthangi.
The alleged detenue is a student of third year Engineering.
He used to visit Chithirambur Village to meet his sister.
The alleged detenue used to approach him for clarification over certain doubts in engineering subjects.
Parents of the alleged detenue misunderstood the same, as an affair, and due to their compulsion, marriage was performed forcibly on 12.03.2014 and registered in the office of the Registrar, K.Pudupatti Keelanilai.
According to the petitioner, marriage was against his wish.
2.The petitioner has further submitted that after the marriage, the alleged detenue stayed at Aranthangi and continued her studies.
On 22.07.2014, persons belonging to her community conducted panchayat and passed a resolution that the petitioner's sister should not live with her husband at Chithirambur Village.
Maternal uncle of the petitioner Chinnakannu was compelled to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and others were also forced to pay fine.
He has alleged that the persons who conducted the katta panchayat forced them to kneel down before the community people belonging to the alleged detenue.
3.The petitioner has further contended that on 16.08.2014 he could not contact the alleged detenue.
He came to know that the respondents 3 and 4 have planned to murder his wife, namely, the alleged detenue.
In this regard, he made a complaint on 18.08.2014 to the Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District, second respondent herein.
As no action was taken, he sought for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
4.On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on the basis of the instructions and inviting the attention of this Court, a petition dated 25.07.2014 sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, respondent No.1, Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the complaint dated 25.07.2014, the petitioner himself has stated that out of compulsion, the marriage was performed between the petitioner and the alleged detenue, which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, K.Pudupatti, on 12.03.2014 and that being aggrieved over the forcible act, the petitioner has filed an original petition on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, to declare the marriage as null and void.
5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that having filed the original petition before the said court, suppressing the above said fact, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that his wife has been illegally detained.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material fact.
6.During the couRs.of the hearing, though the Court has posed a specific question to the learned counsel for petitioner to give the number of HMOP filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, there was no answer.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the relief sought for in the original petition filed before the said Court was not granted, Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
He also added that the life of the alleged detenue is in danger.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
8.In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the marriage between him and Shanmuga Priya was performed by persons belonging to the same community as that of the alleged detenue and that on 12.03.2014, it was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, K.Pudupatti.
In the complaint, dated 25.07.2014, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, respondent No.1, the petitioner has stated as follows: ".Bkw;go rz;Kfg;gphpah Kd;whk; Mz;L bghwpapay; goj;Jte;jhh; vd;dplk; gog;g[ rk;ge;jkhf gy re;BjfA;fis Bfl;gJz;L.
nij jtwhf g[hpe;Jbfhz;l rz;Kfg;gphpahtpd; jhahh; kw;Wk; mtuJ cwtpdh;fs; vdf;Fk; rz;Kfg;gphpahtpw;Fk; jtwhd fs;s cwt[ nUg;gjhff; fUjp Ch; fl;l gq;rhaj;jpd; Kyk; vdf;Fk; Bkw;go rz;Kfg;gphpahtpw;Fk; tYf;fl;lhakhf fl;lha jpUkzk; K.g[Jg;gl;o fPHhepiy rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 12.03.2014k; Bjjp elj;jpitj;jdh;.
Bkw;go jpUkzk; vd;Dila kw;Wk; rz;Kfg;gphpah rk;kjkpd;wp eilbgw;wjhy; ehd; g[Jf;Bfhl;il rhh;g[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Bkw;go jpUkzk; bry;yh epiyahdJ vd mwptpf;f kD jhf;fy; bra;Js;Bsd;.".
9.At the end of the above said complaint, the petitioner has stated as follows: ".rKfk; mk;kh Bkw;go rz;Kfg;gphpahit Tg;gpl;L tprhhpj;jhBy cz;ikr; rk;gtk; bjhpatUk;.
jhA;fs; Tg;gpl;L tprhhpj;J vdf;Fk; vdJ cwtpdh;fSf;Fk; ghJfhg;g[ mspf;FkhWk; vdJ rBfhjhp kw;Wk; cwtpdh;fis fl;lg;gq;rhaj;J Kyk; mguhjk; tpjpj;J Ciutpl;L xJf;fp itj;Jk; vd;id rhjpiaf;Twp mtkhdkhfg; Bgrpa[k; Bkw;go fs;sh; ndj;jpdh; kPJk; rz;Kfg;gphpahtpd; cwtpdh;fs; kPJk; jFe;j eltof;if vLf;Fk;go kpfj; jhH;ika[ld; Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;.".
10.Thus from the above complaint, dated 25.07.2014, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, respondent No.1, it is clear that being aggrieved by alleged forcible marriage, the petitioner has already filed a original petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai District, to declare the marriage as null and void.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, nowhere in the supporting affidavit to this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has stated about the filing of the original petition filed for declaration of the marriage, dated 12.03.2014.
Suppression is per se apparent.
Further, from a reading of the complaint, dated 25.07.2014, it could be deduced that the petitioner has alleged imposition of penalty against his relatives.
At the end of the complaint, the petitioner has sought for protection.
To that extent, the petitioner has made averments in paragraph No.4 of the supporting affidavit.
Quite contrary to the above, in his complaint, dated 18.08.2014, the petitioner has alleged that respondents No.3 and 4 would have kidnapped the alleged detenue.
Therefore, he has requested the Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District, respondent No.2, to find out Shanmuga Priya.
11.A combined reading of both the complaints, dated 25.07.2014 and 18.08.2014 respectively addressed to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively, makes it clear that allegations of kidnapping, alleged detention by the respondents 3 and 4, is a new fact introduced, solely for the purpose of filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
The petitioner has already filed original petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai District, for declaration that the marriage performed on 12.03.2014, as null and void.
Merely because he could not get any relief, Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be filed for production of the alleged detenue.
Except the above said complaints, there are no materials to indicate that there was illegal detention.
12.As stated supra, suppression of filing of a original petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, is apparent on the face of the report.
The conduct of the petitioner in trying to introduce a new fact in the complaint dated 18.08.2014 alleging kidnapping by respondents No.3 and 4 and filing present Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be appreciated by this Court.
Habeas Corpus Petition is wholly misconceived, filed for some ulterior purpose.
As observed earlier in the forgoing paragraphs, there is no abduction, kidnapping and illegal detention.
Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the official respondent.
13.Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District.