M.S.Ramesh Vs. the State by

M.S.Ramesh vs The State by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 10, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964157

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/964157
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren
Decided On: Jan 10, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.S.Ramesh

Respondent

The State by

Excerpt

.....18 years and 21 days, before this court and hand over the custody of the petitioner's daughter to the petitioner and set her at liberty. !for petitioner ... mr.t.r.subramanian ^for respondents ... mr.r.ramachandran additional public prosecutor :order (order of the court was made by m.jaichandren, j) this habeas corpus petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the detenue, namely, m.r.deepika, the daughter of the petitioner, who was doing her diploma in electrical and electronics engineering course, in tamil nadu government polytechnic college, madurai.2. it has been stated that the detenue had been missing, from 09.10.2012 onwards. therefore, the petitioner had given a complaint to the respondent, on 11.10.2012. based on the said complaint, the respondent had registered a case, in cr.no.711 of 2012, as a 'woman missing' case. since, no effective steps have been taken, the petitioner has preferred the present habeas corpus petition before this court.3. today, when the matter was listed for hearing, the learned additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the respondent police, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, on 11.10.2012, has taken effective steps to trace the detenue.4. a status report, dated 09.01.2013, had been filed before this court, wherein it has been stated that the detenu has been speaking to her mother through a mobile phone bearing number 868281677. it is also stated that the respondent police had been visiting a number of places and had conducted enquires with various persons, regarding the missing woman.5. in such circumstances, this court is of the view that the respondent police are taking effective steps to trace the detenue. as no further orders are necessary, the present habeas corpus petition stands closed. however, the respondent police shall continue the investigation and take necessary steps to trace the detenue, as.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

10. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P(MD)No.1371 of 2012 M.S.Ramesh .. Petitioner vs. The State by The Inspector of Police, D-3, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to produce the petitioner's daughter, the detenue M.R.Deepika aged 18 years and 21 days, before this Court and hand over the custody of the petitioner's daughter to the petitioner and set her at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Subramanian ^For respondents ... Mr.R.Ramachandran Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the detenue, namely, M.R.Deepika, the daughter of the petitioner, who was doing her diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Course, in Tamil Nadu Government Polytechnic College, Madurai.

2. It has been stated that the detenue had been missing, from 09.10.2012 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner had given a complaint to the respondent, on 11.10.2012. Based on the said complaint, the respondent had registered a case, in Cr.No.711 of 2012, as a 'Woman Missing' case. Since, no effective steps have been taken, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.

3. Today, when the matter was listed for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the respondent police, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, on 11.10.2012, has taken effective steps to trace the detenue.

4. A Status Report, dated 09.01.2013, had been filed before this Court, wherein it has been stated that the detenu has been speaking to her mother through a mobile phone bearing number 868281677. It is also stated that the respondent police had been visiting a number of places and had conducted enquires with various persons, regarding the missing woman.

5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent police are taking effective steps to trace the detenue. As no further orders are necessary, the present Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. However, the respondent police shall continue the investigation and take necessary steps to trace the detenue, as expeditiously as possible. jikr To 1.The Inspector of Police, D-3, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. 2 The Additional Public Prosecutor, The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties M.S.Ramesh vs The State by Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.Jaichandren