IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 2-12-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN H.C.P.No.1931 of 2008 M.Umamaheswaran ..Petitioner vs 1.The State Represented by The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai. 2.The State Represented by The Assistant Commissioner of Police Periyar Nagar Chennai City, Chennai. 3.The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police K-5, Peravallur Police Station Chennai. 4.Imtiaz Ahmed ..Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to produce the body and person of the detenue Miss.Anita aged 26, the daughter of the petitioner before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 to 3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has brought forth this petition stating that his daughter Anita, aged 26, has been abducted by the fourth respondent herein, and she is in his custody, and under the circumstances, it has become necessary to approach this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3.From the very reading of the affidavit, it would be quite clear that they had a love affair, and thereafter, they were living for sometime outside. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that originally a case under Sec.376 of IPC was registered; that he was in judicial custody and has come out on bail; that even after coming out on bail, he has again taken her as he did in the past, and under the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of habeas corpus petition. 4.In answer to the above, it is contended by the State that it is true that originally on the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered under Sec.376 of IPC, and he was in judicial custody, and now, he is on bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that she has given a complaint on 21.11.2008, to the Secretary to the State and a copy to the concerned police stating that she fell in love with the fourth respondent herein and out of own interest and volition, she embraced Islam and now her name is Ayisha, and she married the fourth respondent, and the same has also been registered, and she is now living with him, and under the circumstances, a case under Sec.376 IPC should not have been registered against him. This is the state of affairs according to the State. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor also placed the materials for the perusal of the Court and they are perused. After looking into the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the Court could interfere by exercising its writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The request of the petitioner does not require consideration. 6.Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv/ To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Periyar Nagar, Chennai City, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCP No.1931 of 2008 VM (CO) GSK 26.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/