1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No.9084 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Sujatha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 4.Swamynathan ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2011 and to forbear the respondents in any way interfering with the peaceful family life of the petitioner and to grant police protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband. For Petitioner ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents ... Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader for R.1 to R.3 Mr.M.Anbalagan for R.4 ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2011 and to forbear the respondents in any way interfering with the peaceful family life of the petitioner and to grant police protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband. 2. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Anbalagan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The Inspector of Police - the third respondent is present in the Court and submits that on the part of the respondent police, there will be no threat to the petitioner and it is the family affair between the petitioner and her father - the fourth respondent and that any issues can be resolved by the parties between themselves. 5. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he apprehends that the girl may be forcibly married by Sundar Jeethkumar and the attempt by the parents to talk to her and to meet her has proved futile. Further, the marriage was not informed to the fourth respondent. Fearing serious consequences to his daughter's life, they went in search of her to Thuckalai and thereafter, returned since they could not locate their daughter. 6. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that they have filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in the writ petition in view of the stand taken by the fourth respondent that they will proceed in the matter by way of Habeas Corpus Petition. Since the police have already indicated that they are not interfering in the matter and also taking note of the affidavit filed by the father of the petitioner - the fourth respondent who states that he will pursue the matter in the competent proceedings, the writ petition stands closed with no further direction. As pleaded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if any need arises for police protection in future, they may approach the authorities in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to M/s.N.Anbalagam, Advocate, SR.No.30354 rsb GH : 26.09.2011 : 2p/5c W.P.(MD)No.9084 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 06.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/