Madras High Court
M.Amul vs The Commissioner Of Police on 17 August, 2022
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
M.Amul .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
3.Anand .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus directing 2nd respondent herein to produce the body
or person of the petitioner's minor daughter M.Kokila, aged about 17 years,
before this Court from the illegal custody of 3rd respondent and hand over to
the petitioner.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Thamizharasan
For RR 1 and 2 : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner/mother seeking production of her minor daughter M.Kokila, aged about 17 years, before this Court from the illegal custody of third respondent and hand over to her.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her daughter Kokila, aged about 17 years, who had applied for her Under Graduate degree in Meenakshi Women's College at Kodambakkam, went missing from 06.08.2021, in connection with which, she had lodged a complaint to the second respondent/police, based on which, a case in Crime No.312 of 2021 has been registered for 'girl missing'. It is the further case of the petitioner Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021 that during enquiry, she came to know that Anand, third respondent herein, who is a notorious person involved in various criminal cases, had kidnapped her daughter and illegally detaining her. Since the police have not taken any effective steps to secure her daughter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this habeas corpus petition.
3. Heard Mr.G.K.Thamizharasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. When the matter was taken up hearing on 06.09.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“It is the case of the petitioner that her daughter M.Kokila, aged about 17 years, went missing from 06.08.2021 and that the police are not taking effective steps to secure her.
2. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on a complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Teynampet Police Station Crime No.312 of 2021 was registered on 06.08.2021 for 'girl missing' and investigation is in progress.
3. In such view of the matter, this Court issues a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Teynampet, to monitor the investigation in Teynampet Police Station Crime No.312 of 2021 and keep the petitioner informed of the Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021 developments, if any. As and when the detenue M.Kokila, aged about 17 years, is secured, she shall be produced before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, under intimation to the petitioner. On such production, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders with regard to custody in accordance with law.
Post the matter on 04.10.2021.”
5. On 04.10.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“Mr.P.Perumal, Sub-Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, is present today.
2. At request of learned APP, adjourned to 01.11.2021.
In the meanwhile, if the detenue is secured, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 shall be complied with.”
6. On 01.11.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“Mr.P.Perumal, Sub-Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, is present today.
2. The second respondent has filed a status report dated 05.10.2021 narrating the steps that are being taken by the police to secure the alleged detenue.
3. At the request of learned APP, adjourned to 29.11.2021.
In the meanwhile, if the detenue is secured, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 shall be complied with.”
7. On 29.11.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“Mr.P.Perumal, Sub-Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021 Police Station, is present today.
2. On instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor explained to the Court the steps that were taken by the police to trace the whereabouts of the detenue and produce her either before this Court or before the jurisdictional Magistrate, as ordered by us in our earlier order dated 06.09.2021.
3. At the request of learned APP, adjourned to 03.01.2022.
In the meanwhile, if the detenue is secured, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 shall be complied with.”
8. On 03.01.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“At the request of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, adjourned to 31.01.2022.
In the meanwhile, if the detenue is secured, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 shall be complied with.”
9. On 04.04.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“Today, Mr.S.Mani, Sub-Inspector of Police, E3- Teynampet (L & O) Police Station, is present.
2. The police have already filed a status report dated 05.10.2021 detailing the steps that have been taken to secure the detenue.
3. At the request of learned APP, adjourned to 07.06.2022.
In the meanwhile, if the detenue is secured, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 shall be complied with.” Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
10. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for several occasions for production of the detenue Kokila before this Court. On 08.08.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“When the matter came up on 04.08.2022, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from Mr. Elango, Sub Inspector of Police, submitted that the detenue is available and that she could not be produced before this Court on account of advanced stage of pregnancy and that she will be produced on the date of next hearing through videoconferencing. Hence, at the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the matter was adjourned and posted today specifically at 2.15 p.m.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is seeking time to produce the detenue on the ground that she has got to be secured.
3. We are not inclined to accept the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as two different versions are given by the Sub Inspector of Police, who is present in Court. This is a very pathetic case where the mother is in search of her daughter, who is a minor. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, under whose custody, the detenue is alleged to be, is a person against whom two criminal cases are pending, out of which, one is a murder case and the other one is under the NDPS Act. We find that there is something fishy, more so, when it is stated that the detenue is available and she is in the advanced stage of pregnancy.
4. In order to give an opportunity, for production of the detenue through videoconferencing, list the matter on 10.08.2022 at 2.15p.m. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Teynampet, shall appear before this Court on that day at 2.15 p.m. in person.” Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
11. On 10.08.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.08.2022, Mr.Adarsh Pachera, Deputy Commissioner of Police,T.Nagar, Chennai appeared before this Court through video conferencing and submitted that incorrect statement given by the Sub Inspector of Police before this Court is highly regrettable. He would further submit that departmental action has been taken against the said Sub Inspector of Police for giving incorrect statement before this Court and steps are being taken to secure the victim girl at the earliest.
Post the matter on 12.08.2022, for production of victim girl before this Court through videoconferencing.”
12. On 12.08.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“Mr.T. Prakash Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Teynampet and Mr.A. Murali, Inspector of Police, E-3 Teynampet Police Station are present before this Court and their presence is hereby recorded.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the detenue girl has not been secured so far and that a special team has been formed to secure the girl and produce her before this Court. It is further stated that for the incorrect statement made by the Police Officer, viz., Mr. Elango, the Sub-Inspector of Police, before this Court on earlier occasion and various other acts pertaining to the issue in question, show cause notice dated 11.08.2022 has been issued to the said Police Officer asking him to give an explanation and that the officer has received a memo on 11.08.2022. On receipt of the explanation or in case of non-furnishing of explanation within Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021 the time stipulated, further action will be taken against the said Police official.
3. At the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, post the matter on 17.08.2022.”
13. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the police produced the detenue Kokila before this Court. The petitioner is also present.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenue Kokila has been secured from Bangalore and she is a major now. He would further submit that since Kokila was kidnapped when she was a minor and based on her statement, the case has been altered to one under Section 366-A IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is his further submission that Anand/R3 has been arrested and remanded in judicial custody.
15. We enquired Kokila. She would submit that her date of birth is 31.07.2004. She would further submit that she was in love with Anand/R3 and since the same was objected to by her mother (petitioner), she had eloped with him and lived with him in Bangalore. Further, she would submit Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021 that she is now pregnant and willing to go along with her mother (petitioner).
16. We also enquired the petitioner. She would submit that she is willing and prepared to take her daughter Kokila with her.
Recording the same, this habeas corpus petition stands closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (A.D.J.C., J.) 17.08.2022 nsd S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
nsd To Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1369 of 2021
1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1369 of 202117.08.2022 Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis