AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mrs.Jothilakshmi has brought forth this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The case of the petitioner in short is that her husband is working in P.W.D. on temporary basis; that her daughter Kayalvizhi, the alleged detenue, was doing XII Standard in a private tutorial college at Chinnamanoor; that she left for the college in the morning hours of 24.12.2009, but did not come back; that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that she was actually kidnapped by one Sakthivelu; that actually a complaint was given to the first respondent police; that a case was also registered u/s 366-A of IPC; but no steps have been taken to trace her, and under the circumstances, she was compelled to file this petition before this Court.
On the earlier occasion, the Court issued a direction to the Superintendent of Police concerned to monitor the investigation. But nothing was forthcoming. Under the circumstances, the Court required the Inspector General of Police (South) to file a report as to the stage of the investigation and also the action taken in that regard.
The matter is listed this day, and a report is also filed by the Inspector General of Police (South). The same is also looked into.
This day, the alleged detenue Kayalvizhi is also produced before the Court. She is also enquired. According to her, she was born on 11.6.1992, and the marriage took place between herself and Sakthivelu on 25.12.2009, and they have been living together as husband and wife respectively. She would further add that the petitioner is her mother.
The statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. The said Sakthivelu is also produced before the Court. Now, a case has been registered against him, and the same is pending. Under the circumstances, he has got to be produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate for necessary proceedings. As far as the alleged detenue is concerned, it is an admitted position that she was born on 11.6.1992, and now she has attained majority. Hence there is no impediment in setting her at liberty. Accordingly, she is set at liberty, and this petition is disposed of.