Shanthi Vs. 1.State Represented by

Shanthi vs 1.State Represented by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 11, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964930

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/964930
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren
Decided On: Jan 11, 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

Shanthi

Respondent

1.State Represented by

Excerpt

.....daughter, kalaivani, aged 34, from the illegal custody of the respondent no.4 and to produce the detenue before this court and set her at liberty. !for petitioner ... mr.k.prabhu ^for respondents 1 to 3 ... 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 respondents 1 to 3 to secure the detenue, namely, kalaivani, aged about 34 years, the daughter of the petitioner, from the illegal custody of the fourth respondent and to produce her before this court and to set her at liberty.2. at this stage of the hearing of the habeas corpus petition, the learned additional public prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, had submitted that, when the detenue had gone missing, on an earlier occasion, a complaint had been lodged by the husband of the detenue, namely, padmanaban, before the second respondent police and the complaint was registered in crime no.75 of 2012. thereafter, the detenue had been produced before the learned judicial magistrate, sankarankovil, on 05.03.2012, and the detenue had been handed over to her husband, namely, padmanaban. thereafter, the detenue had eloped, once again, with the fourth respondent.3. in view of the said submission made by the learned additional public prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, this court is of the prima facie view that the detenue is not in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. therefore, no further orders are necessary in the present habeas corpus petition. hence, the habeas corpus petition stands closed. asvm to 1.the superintendent of police, tirunelveli, tirunelveli district. 2.the inspector of police, sankarankovil town, tirunelveli district. 3.the sub-inspector of police, arumbavur, perambalur district. 4.the additional public prosecutor, madurai bench of the madras high court, madurai.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

11. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P(MD)No.1550 of 2012 Shanthi .. Petitioner vs 1.State represented by Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.State represented by Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town, Tirunelveli District. 3.State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Arumbavur, Perambalur District. 4.Bharathi .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to secure the petitioner's daughter, Kalaivani, aged 34, from the illegal custody of the respondent No.4 and to produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.K.Prabhu ^For respondents 1 to 3 ... 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 respondents 1 to 3 to secure the detenue, namely, Kalaivani, aged about 34 years, the daughter of the petitioner, from the illegal custody of the fourth respondent and to produce her before this Court and to set her at liberty.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, had submitted that, when the detenue had gone missing, on an earlier occasion, a complaint had been lodged by the husband of the detenue, namely, Padmanaban, before the second respondent police and the complaint was registered in Crime No.75 of 2012. Thereafter, the detenue had been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, on 05.03.2012, and the detenue had been handed over to her husband, namely, Padmanaban. Thereafter, the detenue had eloped, once again, with the fourth respondent.

3. in view of the said submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, this Court is of the prima facie view that the detenue is not in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, no further orders are necessary in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. asvm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arumbavur, Perambalur District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties Shanthi vs 1.State Represented by Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.Jaichandren