K.N. Basha, J.

1. The petitioner who is the mother of the detenu / victim viz., the deceased Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar, aged about 21 years, has come forward with the Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP.No.43/2011 seeking for the relief of directing the first respondent to interrogate the same with the 2nd respondent and to produce Vinoth and Lakshmi before this Court and set them at liberty and with the writ petition in WP.No.1293/2011 seeking for the relief of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry regarding the death of petitioner's son, Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar or to appoint any learned District Judge to conduct enquiry regarding the death of petitioner's son Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar.

2. a. The petitioner has stated in her affidavit that one Lakshmi, daughter of one Rathinapandiyan, fell in love with her son, the victim and both of them left their respective houses on 14.08.2010. On the basis of the complaint of the father of the girl to the Puzhal Police Station, both the boy and the girl were secured by Melmaruvathur Police and handed over to Puzhal police. Thereafter, they were sent to their respective houses. The girl came to the house of the petitioner again on 30.08.2010 and the petitioner handed over the girl to the police who in turn, sent her to her parents’ house.

At the instance of the girl, on 22.09.2010, both the victim Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar and Lakshmi decided to marry. In the meanwhile, on 10.10.2010, the Puzhal police arrested the petitioner’s son and ultimately, he was released on bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.25134/2010 by the order dated 29.10.2010.

2. b. The petitioner has further stated in her affidavit that the daughter of the said Rathinapandiyan is a minor and her parents have forcibly performed her marriage at Thisayanvilai. Since then, the petitioner’s son has not returned to his home and a complaint was given by the petitioner to the 6th respondent on 24.12.2010 for tracing her son. The father of the girl and her relatives threatened the family members of the petitioner that her son would be killed. Again, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 6th respondent; but the 6th respondent refused to receive the complaint and she has sent the complaint through a registered post and filed HCP.No.43/2011 before this Court and the same was admitted and notice was ordered on 11.01.2011 and suddenly on 14.01.2011 at about 3.57 a.m. the petitioner received a phone call from the 4th respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police through his cellphone No.9442997188, stating that her son was arrested and he would be remanded immediately. Fifteen minutes later, the Head Constable attached to the 4th respondent police station, called the petitioner again and stated that her son had met with an accident. Again, at 7.30 a.m. the Inspector of police called the petitioner over phone and informed her that her son died due to an alleged accident. The petitioner suspected that her son was murdered at the hands of the police during his custody at the instigation of the 2nd respondent in HCP.No.43/2011.

2. c. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Puzhal Police Station as the parents of the said Lakshmi were residing within the jurisdiction of the said police station and a case was registered in FIR No.344/2011 for the offence u/s.366-A IPC. In the said FIR, it is revealed that the girl is aged about 16 years and she belongs to different community from that of the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner in her affidavit that her son was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri on 14.01.2011 and the learned Magistrate has remanded the victim and directed the 4th respondent to detain him under the control of the Superintendent of Borstal School, Nanguneri for 15 days. One Mr.G.Mahesh, Head Constable attached to the 4th respondent, lodged a complaint with the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner’s son, viz., the deceased and the girl were arrested and