High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Soosaiappan v. State rep. by - HCP (MD)No.192 of 2007  RD-TN 1699 (9 May 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
HCP (MD)No.192 of 2007
Soosaiappan .. Petitioner
1. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
5. Kumar .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce petitioner's son, namely, Michelsamy in person before this Court.
For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj,
No.1 Addl.Public Prosecutor
(Order of the Court was made by G.RAJASURIA,J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2.The petitioner is the father of the alleged detenu by name Michelsamy. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu, along with his wife, is found missing and that the petitioner apprehends that there might be some danger to the life of the detenu as there was some quarrel between the detenu and his wife, the respondent No.2.
3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that respondent No.1 is not in receipt of any complaint at all.
4.Be that as it may, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1, within a week from this date, with a copy of the complaint already sent and air his grievance. Thereupon, respondent No.1 shall call both sides and look into the matter keeping in mind the provision of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1.
5.With the above direction, the habeas corpus petition is closed. To
The Inspector of Police,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.