Madras High Court
P.R.Veerappan @ Raja vs The Superintendent Of Police on 10 June, 2010
Bench: M.Chockalingam, A.Arumughaswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/6/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY H.C.P.(MD) No.440 of 2010 P.R.Veerappan @ Raja .. Petitioner vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District 2.The Inspector of Police Arimazham Police Station Pudukkottai District 3.The Sub Inspector of Police Arimalam Police Station Pudukkottai District .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body and person of the petitioner's wife Geetha, aged 22, D/o. Muthalagu, now under the illegal custody of the third respondent herein before this Court and set her at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.M.Rajarajan ^For Respondents ... Mr.Daniel Manoharan Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.Veerappan @ Raja has brought forth this petition for the production of one Geetha alleging that he was doing ITI Course at M.R.Arunachalam Polytechnic at Pudukkottai; that he went for his employment in the year 2003; that he returned to his native place in 2008; that the said Geetha is the daughter of one Muthalagu; that they fell in love with each other; that she was doing B.Com. course at Seethalakshmi Achi Women's College, Pallathur; that they decided to marry; that thereafter, he left for Singapore in view of his employment; that they used to talk by phone; that thereafter, he returned to his native place; that he went over to the house of her father and asked for the marriage; but, he refused; that under the circumstances, they decided to marry; that accordingly, the marriage has taken place on 4.11.2009, at Perumal Temple at Pallathur as per the Hindu customs and rites, but against the will of her father; that thereafter, she has actually been taken away in a TATA Sumo car, and then he gave a complaint immediately to the second respondent police; but no steps have been taken, and under the circumstances, this petition has been brought forth.
2.This day when the matter is taken up for enquiry, she is also produced by the police. She is enquired. According to her, she was born on 17.5.1991, and she was doing B.Com., and while she was doing second year course, the petitioner was torturing her, and in view of the same, her studies were abruptly stopped by her parents, and all the allegations that she fell in love with him and the marriage has taken place and she was forcibly taken away by the parents are all nothing but false, and now she has been staying with the parents, and this petition has been brought forth with false allegations.
3.The statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. After looking into the averments made and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the alleged detenue, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition has been brought forth with all false allegations possible. From the enquiry of the detenue, it would be quite clear that she was actually doing her B.Com. course and her studies have been abruptly stopped by her parents in view of the torture made by the petitioner herein. It would clearly be indicative of the fact that there was no love affair, but it was one sided, and due to the torture, her studies have been put an end. That apart, he has come forward with the false allegations as if there was a marriage between himself and the detenue on 4.11.2009. Besides that, when she was actually taken and when the complaint was given, no particulars have been given. All would clearly indicate that with all false allegations, this petition has been brought forth, and it is a glaring example of abuse of process of law.
4.In the instant case, the matter has got to be looked into seriously by the Court for the reason that a girl's education has been put an end not only by his activities, but also he has made all false allegations of marriage, etc., and she has also been produced before the Court. The Court has to look from the point of view that it was an attempt not only to tarnish her image and character, but also to ruin the future of the girl. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that not even a dismissal would suffice, but awarding a cost of Rs.10000/- would meet the ends of justice.
5.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Legal Aid, Madurai, towards cost, and this petition is disposed of.
nsv To
1.The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District
2.The Inspector of Police Arimazham Police Station Pudukkottai District
3.The Sub Inspector of Police Arimalam Police Station Pudukkottai District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai