BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11/01/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU HCP (MD) No.18 of 2008 P.Ponselvan .. Petitioner vs 1.The Inspector of Police Aralvoimozhi Police Station Kanyakumari District 2.Y.Bose .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus to direct the 2nd respondent to produce the dtenue namely Sharmila, aged about 33 years, before this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Ramachanthiran ^For Respondents ... Mr.C.Daniel Manoharan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner one Ponselvan
has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit in
support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the first respondent also.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that he joined the Central Reserve
Police Force as a Constable in 1987; that out of the wedlock with one Sharmila,
they got two children, one male aged 14, and the other female aged 10; that in
the year 2001, he left the family with children to his native place called
Aralvoimozhi, for the education of the children; that during that time, the
second respondent has developed illicit intimacy with Sharmila; that thereafter,
her whereabouts were not known; that under the circumstances, he gave a
complaint to the first respondent police; but, no steps were taken; that he
moved this Court and got a direction pursuant to which a case came to be
registered on 11.3.2006, under Sections 365 and 366 of I.P.C.; but, it was
referred to as mistake of fact; that even now, her whereabouts are not known,
and hence, he came forward with this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor who took notice, would submit
that originally, a direction was issued by this Court; that accordingly, a case
came to be registered by the first respondent police on 11.3.2006, under
Sections 365 and 366 of I.P.C.; that investigation was taken up; that it was
found that the wife of the petitioner was in Saudi Arabia, and the second
respondent had nothing to do, and hence, it was referred to as mistake of fact;
and that under the circumstances, the second petition has been brought forth by
way of habeas corpus before this Court.
5.After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that
it is not a fit case where a writ as asked for, could be issued. Once a
complaint was given by the petitioner, and on the direction of this Court, a
case came to be registered, and on investigation, it was found that the second
respondent is actually residing in Tamilnadu and also working as a fitter in the
Transport Corporation, and the wife of the petitioner is actually in Saudi
Arabia, no question of issuing any direction would arise. Even from the
allegations made in the affidavit, it would be clear that for a period of 10
years from 2001 onwards, he is in his native place, and now, a complaint was
given only during 2006. No further allegations are made. Under the
circumstances, it is not a fit case where the Court can issue a writ of habeas
corpus. Hence, this petition deserves an order of dismissal, and accordingly,
it is dismissed.
nsv/
To:
1.The Inspector of Police
Aralvoimozhi Police Station
Kanyakumari District