IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11-11-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.No.2103 of 2010 R.Dayalan .. Petitioner vs 1.State rep. By Inspector of Police K2 Ayanavaram Police Station Chennai 600 023. 2.Jeevith Kumar .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce the body or person of Rabea aged 18 years daughter of Dayalan, the petitioner herein, before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : 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.Dayalan has brought forth this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his daughter aged 18. 2.The averments made in the affidavit in support of the petition, are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3.The gist of the case of the petitioner is that his daughter was actually missing from 25.9.2010 onwards; that a complaint was given to the first respondent, and a case was actually registered for girl missing; but, she has not yet been secured, and under the circumstances, this petition is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Replying to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that it is true that a case was registered on 25.9.2010, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner, for girl missing, and subsequently, she was secured at Nellore, and thereafter, her custody was handed over to the petitioner herein, and he also gave a letter to that effect. The said letter is also produced before the Court and perused. 5.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further add that again she is found missing along with the same person who kidnapped her earlier. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got to be permitted to give a fresh complaint to the first respondent police. Accordingly, permission is granted, and the first respondent police should look into the averments in the complaint, and if the circumstances require so, register a case and proceed with the matter as required by law. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. nsv To: 1.The Inspector of Police K2 Ayanavaram Police Station Chennai 600 023. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr. 80921 HCP No.2103 of 2010 SSN (CO) kk 23/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/