BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.(MD) No.218 of 2010 R.Loganathan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Satthanaur Police Station, Krishnagiri District. 3.The Inspector of Police, D2 Sellur Police Station, Madurai. .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenus (1) Ramachandrappa (2) Sarojiniammal 3) R.Sambashiva and (4) Jayanthi, before this Court and set them at liberty from the custody of the respondents and for other consequential orders. !For Petitioner ... Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Addl.Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.)
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to the
respondents to produce the detenus (1) Ramachandrappa (2) Sarojiniammal 3)
R.Sambashiva and (4) Jayanthi, before this Court and set them at liberty from
the custody of the respondents and for other consequential orders.
2. This petition has been filed by one Loganathan stating at the instance
of the third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 took the detenus namely,
Ramachandrappa, Sarojiniammal, R.Sambashiva and Jayanthi to the Police Station
for enquiry on 06.03.2010 and from that date onwards, they are missing and they
have been kept under illegal custody by the respondents. It is also stated in
the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the petitioner gave a
telegram to the first respondent, but no steps have been taken by the first
respondent, to that effect.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that already the
mother of the girl Surya, filed an Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP No.53 of 2010
before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to register a
case and thereafter later on, the brother of the third respondent in HCP No.53
of 2010, who is the petitioner herein, has filed the present Habeas Corpus
Petition.
4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondents, carefully and meticulously.
5. It is the stand of the petitioner’s counsel that at the instance of the
Inspector of Police, D2 Sellur Police Station, Madurai, the first and second
respondents, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Krishnagiri District and the
Inspector of Police, Sathanur Police Station, Krishnagiri District,
respectively, had removed the above said persons.
6. It is pertinent to note that there is no post of Commissioner of Police
in Krishnagiri District and there is no Police Station by name Sathanur Police
Station in Krishnagiri District, and it is purely an imaginary one. The
petitioner has filed this HCP without giving the true particulars, with a prayer
to give a direction to the respondents to produce the detenus before this Court.
Since the respondents 1 and 2 have been characterised by imagination, the claim
of the petitioner that at the instance of the third respondent, the respondents
1 and 2 took the detenus to the Police Station and they are under illegal
custody, is not correct.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a mistake. If any
medical negligence is committed by a doctor, the doctor will not be left out and
the doctor will face the consequences. It is high time that the same standard
has also to be adopted in the legal profession.
8. In view of the above, we are of the view that this petition is not
maintainable. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
KM
To
The Inspector of Police,
D2 Sellur Police Station,
Madurai.