Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4454
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
D. Priya
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kandikuppam Police Station & Others
H.C.P. No.1678 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2010
For the Petitioner:T. Arulraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is that the arrest and judicial remand of the detenu for the offenses influenced the court's decision to dispose of the habeas corpus petition.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Love Relationship - The court disposed of the habeas corpus petition as the detenu had been arrested and judicially remanded for the offenses under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner developed a relationship with the detenu, became pregnant, and filed a habeas corpus petition as the detenu was not coming out of the house after a case was registered against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenu had been arrested and judicially remanded for the offenses, making the petitioner's request for consideration unnecessary.
Issues: The issue was whether the habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner required consideration given the arrest and judicial remand of the detenu.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the detenu had been arrested and judicially remanded for the offenses, rendering the petitioner's request for consideration unnecessary.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was disposed of accordingly, as the detenu had been arrested and judicially remanded for the offenses.
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J)
1. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that she developed love with the detenu Selvadurai and pursuant to the love between herself and the detenu Selvadurai, they became intimated to each other and due to the relationship developed, she became pregnant seven or eight months. When it came to the knowledge of the detenu, he was not coming out of the house. Hence a complaint was given to the first respondent and a case in Crime No.255 of 2010 was registered. But the detenu was not actually secured. Under such circumstances, the present habeas corpus petition is brought forth by the petitioner.
2. When the matter is taken up for enquiry, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the State that a case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.255 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code 2 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act and the detenu has actually been arrested on 9.9.2010 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri and he was judicially remanded on the same day.
3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State and recorded above, I am of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioner at this stage does not require any consideration and the habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly.
