Madras High Court
S.Thirumeni vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 July, 2016
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.7.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
H.C.P.No.479 of 2016
S.Thirumeni ..... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchengode Town Police Station,
Namakkal District.
2. Manish ..... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter namely, Kalaiselvi, aged about 17 years before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU J.) The petitioner is the mother of one Kalaiselvi, aged 17 years. Her date of birth is 25.8.1999. She was studying +2 course in a local school. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had kidnapped her. On a complaint made by the petitioner, a case has been registered in Cr.No.51/2016 under Sections 447, 323 and 366(A) IPC. The first respondent is conducting the investigation. Since the minor girl was not secured by the police on time, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. This petition has been pending from 15.3.2016 onwards. A number of adjournments have been taken by the Inspector of Police to secure the minor girl.
3. Today, the minor girl, Miss.Kalaiselvi was produced before this Court by the first respondent. We enquired her. She said that she was staying in New Delhi at the house of a friend by name Renuka. The Inspector of Police would submit that she has given a statement wherein she has stated that the second respondent had kidnapped her on 02.02.2016 with the help of few more persons, took her to a temple known as Sengammal Muniappan temple, tied thali indicating marriage, then took her to New Delhi where he kept her for about 3 1/2 months. During the said period, according to her statement, the second respondent had sexual intercourse with the minor girl.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first respondent is going to alter the case for offence under the POCSO Act. The petitioner and her husband were also present. They stated that they would take the child under their custody, if permitted.
5. We have considered all the above. We are of the view that it would be appropriate only for the Special Court under POCSO Act to deal with the custody of the child, namely, Kalaiselvi, since the FIR is going to be altered for offence under the said Act.
6. We direct the first respondent to take the child and produce her before the Special court under POCSO Act, Namakkal by 12.09.2016 and it will be for the said Court to pass appropriate orders regarding the custody of the minor child. The petitioner and her husband are also at liberty to make an appeal to the said Court seeking custody of the child.
7. The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly.
kua (S.N.J.,) (V.B.D.J.,)
11.7.2016
Note: Issue order copy by 3 p.m.
S.NAGAMUTHU J.,
AND
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
kua
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchengode Town Police Station,
Namakkal District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.479 of 2016
11.7.2016