Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4901
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
R. Dayalan
Versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police & Another
H.C.P.No.2103 of 2010
Decided On : 11-11-2010
For the Petitioner:K.P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court has the jurisdiction to grant permission for filing a fresh complaint in cases involving missing persons.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Missing Daughter - The court granted permission to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint to the police for the missing daughter and directed the police to take necessary action as required by law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his missing daughter. The daughter was initially missing, a case was registered, and she was secured and handed over to the petitioner. However, she went missing again with the same person who kidnapped her earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted permission to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint to the police and directed the police to take necessary action as required by law.
Issues: Missing daughter, custody, fresh complaint to police
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the circumstances of the daughter going missing again and the need for the petitioner to file a fresh complaint to the police.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the court granting permission to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint to the police and directing the police to take necessary action as required by law.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.Dayalan has brought forth this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his daughter aged 18.
2. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the petition, are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that his daughter was actually missing from 25.9.2010 onwards; that a complaint was given to the first respondent, and a case was actually registered for girl missing; but, she has not yet been secured, and under the circumstances, this petition is filed.
4. Replying to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that it is true that a case was registered on 25.9.2010, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner, for girl missing, and subsequently, she was secured at Nellore, and thereafter, her custody was handed over to the petitioner herein, and he also gave a letter to that effect. The said letter is also produced before the Court and perused.
5. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further add that again she is found missing along with the same person who kidnapped her earlier. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got to be permitted to give a fresh complaint to the first respondent police. Accordingly, permission is granted, and the first respondent police should look into the averments in the complaint, and if the circumstances require so, register a case and proceed with the matter as required by law. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.
