1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P(MD)No.478 & 480 of 2011 Aniteen Princely .. Petitioner in both HCPs. Vs. 1.Anetter Allwyn 2.Dathni 3.Anitha Marginic 4.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 4. 5.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 6.The Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents in both HCPs. PRAYER IN HCP.478/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 5th respondent to secure the petitioner's mother Mrs.Kethsi Bai from the illegal custody and wrongful confinement in the hands of the respondents 1 to 3 and to produce the petitioner's mother Mrs.Kethsi Bai before this Court and set her at liberty. PRAYER IN HCP.480/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 5th respondent to secure the petitioner's father M.J.Roby from the illegal custody and wrongful confinement in the hands of the respondents 1 to 3 and to produce the petitioner's father M.J.Roby before this Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.R.Narendran For respondents : Mr.Mr.M.Ajmalkhan (1 to 3) For respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh (R4 to R6) Addl.Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.) Both the petitions have been filed by the daughter to trace and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 produce her father and mother, who are said to be under illegal custody of the respondents 1 to 3, who are all her brother, sister-in-law and her elder sister. 2.According to her, when she prevented the respondents herein, particularly the first respondent, her own brother, from grabbing the property of her father forcibly, the respondents not only threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, but keeping her parents in illegal confinement and assaulted them. 3.Though a complaint to the respondent Police was given, nothing has been done, and the illegal confinement continues. Hence this petition. 4.On notice, the respondent police have brought the first respondent brother of the petitioner herein and the detenues, and mother before this Court. The petitioner is also present before this Court. The respondents 1 to 3 are represented by a counsel. 5.On enquiry, the father and mother of the petitioner and the first respondent, their own son and the brother of the petitioner herein, we could find that there is a very strong tussle going on between the family members over the diversion of properties and this dispute seems to be going on for sometime between them. We also find that there are complaints and counter complaints given even by them before the police and the Police have also intervened on some occasion. 6.It is further stated that there are criminal cases pending between the parties too. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents adds that in the last week, a Criminal Original Petition was filed by the father before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7283 of 2011 seeking for a direction from this Court to direct the respondent police to register the complaint and take action into the matter and appropriate direction has also been given by this Court in that petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is purely a disputes between the family members over the property and therefore Habeas Corpus Petition is not a remedy at all and the petitioner herein has filed only to harass the respondents. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ daughter of the detenues would submit that even the petitioner, being the sister of the first respondent, was also driven out of the house and it is the first respondent, who is the root cause for all the mishappenings and wrong doings. 8. Be that as it may, we find that there is a dispute between the family members and the petitioner, the detenues/parents of the petitioner are all on one side and the first respondent is on the other side. Though it is reported that the first respondent, the son of the detenues is harassing his own parents, we find that the parents are not under illegal custody and only to take action against the first respondent, who is said to be harassing the detenues/parents/the elderly persons, this petition has been filed. The grievances of the petitioner and the detenues parents are also the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.Therefore, nothing could be done in these Habeas Corpus Petitions excepting directing the parties to approach the appropriate forum for resolving their dispute. Considering the status of the family, all the parties are advised to maintain the respectable distance with each other and resolve their dispute amicably in the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Among the family members, it is not advisable to indulge in such activities making one party to complaint against the other before police. The learned counsel appearing on either side may also endeavour their best to resolve their disputes in the manner known to law. 7.Accordingly, this petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 4. 2.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/s.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate, SR.No.21536 MPK GH : 28.07.2011 : 3p/6c H.C.P(MD)No.478 & 480 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/