1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN H.C.P(MD)No.781 of 2011 Karupayee ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.Madhavan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapurm District. 3.Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 3 to rescue the detenue Thilagavathi @ Malathi, wife of Murugan, aged 26 years from the illegal custody of the 2nd respondent and to produce her body before this Court and to set her at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA , J) The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the detenue – Thilagavathi @ Malathi. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the detenue was illegally detained by the 2nd respondent and though a complaint was given to the first and third respondents, no proper action was taken. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. When the matter came up for hearing today, the detenue was produced by the police before us. She categorically stated that she would like to go with the petitioner/mother-in-law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the second respondent called the detenue to the Police Station under the guise of enquiry and she was unnecessarily detained and tortured by the police. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that she was not detained in the Police Station but for the purpose of enquiry, she was called and immediately after the enquiry she was let out. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced a letter written by the detenue stating that she was called for an enquiry in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 connection with a case in Crime No.121 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307 IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act pending on the file of the third respondent police wherein her husband was shown as an accused. It is further stated that she was enquired by the police and thereafter, she was let out. 3. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the detenue was unnecessarily detained and harassed by the police and requested the Court to give suitable direction to the respondents not to harass her. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to instruct suitably to the respondent police not to harass her. 4. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the detenue is not under illegal custody of any body, much less, the second respondent. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as nothing survives for consideration. Sd DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR asvm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.Madhavan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapurm District. 3.Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DM:2011:SEPTEMBER:19:: H.C.P(MD)No.781 of 2011 07.09.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/