IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15-9-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P.No.1758 of 2010 K.Venkatesan .. Petitioner vs 1.The Inspector of Police Vellithirupur Police Station Erode District 2.V.Shasi Kumar .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent to produce the corpus of the detenue by name V.Suriya, daughter of K.Venkatesan before this Court from the illegal custody of the 2nd respondent and set the detenue at liberty and to punish the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.K.Venkatesan has brought forth this petition for the production of his minor daughter Suriya aged 17. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. 3.From the submissions made, it would be quite clear that on 14.5.2010, she was originally found missing, and subsequently, a complaint was given on 17.5.2010, itself, and a case was also registered in Crime No.482 of 2010 for an offence under Sec.366 of IPC. It is also seen that the second respondent was actually arrested, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The alleged detenue was also secured and produced before the Court, and then her custody was actually handed over to the petitioner father. Now, she was again found missing on 30.7.2010, and a second complaint was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given on 9.8.2010. A case was also registered in Crime No.131 of 2010, and the investigation is on. 4.Even from the averments made in the affidavit in support of the petition, it would be quite evident that originally, she was found missing, and the case was registered, and she was secured along with the second respondent and produced before the Court, and the custody was handed over to him. Again she was found missing, and now the case has been registered for the second time. In such circumstances, it is highly doubtful whether it is a case of elopement. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no meaning in keeping this petition pending. At the same time, it would suffice to issue a direction to the first respondent police to investigate the matter effectively and produce her before the concerned Court of law and also take necessary steps in this regard. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this petition is disposed of. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To: 1.The Inspector of Police Vellithirupur Police Station Erode District 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.67870. H.C.P.No.1758 of 2010 TRM(CO) RVL 20.09.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/