IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH H.C.P.No.2003 of 2009 K.Rajamohammed .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. .. Respondents Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu Mohamed Samsudeen, son of Mustafa aged about 28 years, now detained under Third respondent herein and produce before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.M.Seenisultan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Bala Subramaniam, APP . O R D E R (The order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court one K.Rajamohammed has broughtforth this Petition for production of Mohamed Samsudeen who was employed under him during the relevant period. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. Affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the status report filed by the respondents' side are perused. 3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that the detenu was working in the concern of the petitioner as a Collection Agent. On 6.11.2009, he went for collection purpose in a two wheeler but he did not return. The petitioner came to know that he was taken by the fourth and fifth respondent and he was brought to Madras and he was in the premises of the third respondent/ Commissioner of Police, Madras, for the purpose of transporting him to Bihar. Under such circumstances, it became necessary to approach this Court for the purpose of producing him before this Court. 4. On the contrary, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that he was actually involved in four criminal cases. Out of these four cases, trial is pending in three cases and in one case, investigation is pending. 5. After going through the averments made and hearing the submissions on either side, it is quite clear that the alleged detenu was employed as a Collection Agent and he disappeared with the funds collected. Apart from that, even as per the averment, he was chased by the Bihar person in a van. Insofar as the assistance rendered by the 4th and 5th respondents are concerned, it is categorically denied by the status report. It is stated that the detenu was involved in four criminal cases, out of which, trial is pending in three cases and investigation is pending in one case and the third respondent has nothing to do with it. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the money collected by the alleged detenu was misappropriated and taken away by him. Under such circumstances, he has brought forth this petition. The Court is of the opinion that the averment do not make out a case toconsider the request of the petitioner. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. However, there cannot be any impediment for the respondent police to register a case as and when a complaint is made by the petitioner herein, if the facts and circumstances warrant so. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vsi To 1. The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore,Chennai – 600 008. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.M.Seenisulthan, Advocate, SR.70578 HCP.No.2003 of 2009 SR(CO) sra 18.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/