1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2011 M.Muthusamy : Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police,Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District. 3.Vijayaraj : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue, namely, Anusuya, (aged 21 years), daughter of M.Muthusamy before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For R.1&2 : Mr.A.Ramar,Addl.Public Prosecutor For R.3 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar ORDER [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J.] The petitioner is the father of the detenue / Anusuya, aged 21 years. She was studying in MAHRM Course at Joseph College, Trichy. The third respondent in this Habeas Corpus petition was also studying in the same college. From 16.11.2011 onwards, it is stated that the detenue has been found missing. In this regard, the petitioner has preferred a compliant before the second respondent on the same day itself. Even, in the complaint, he has stated that during the subsequent enquiry, he has come to know that the detenue had gone with the third respondent, namely, Vijayaraj, who is a classmate of the detenue. Since the girl was not secured, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus petition. 2. On service of notice in this Habeas Corpus petition, the third respondent has appeared through a Counsel by name Mr.N.Dilipkumar. He would submit that the detenue and the third respondent had fallen in love with each other and they married on 14.11.2011 on their own volition. He would further submit that the said marriage was duly registered on 16.11.2011. Subsequently, on 17.11.2011, both of them appeared before the second respondent and made a statement about the said fact. It was only thereafter, according to the petitioner, this Habeas Corpus petition has been preferred. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to confirm whether the said fact is correct or not. 4. We have considered the above submissions. 5. Mr.M.Dilipkumar, the learned counsel of this Bar who appears on behalf of the third respondent has made the above statement before this Court that the marriage was solemnized on 14.11.2011 and the same was duly registered on 16.11.2011. He would further submit that there are records to that effect. 6. In such view of the matter, going by the age of the detenue and the statement made by the Mr.M.Dilipkumar, the learned counsel for the third respondent, and other attending circumstances, we are satisfied that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 there is no illegal detention of the detenue at the hands of the third respondent so as to issue any direction as prayed for in this Habeas Corpus petition. Therefore, this Habeas Corpus petition is liable to be closed. Accordingly, it is closed with a liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. SD ASST REGISTRAR(A.S) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District. 3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.1cc To Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate (SR No.43049) SB:23/12/2011 2P 5C Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2011 Dated:- 09.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/