Skip to content


Pandiyammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberH.C.P.(MD)No. 670 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos. 7004 & 7005 of 2016
Judge
AppellantPandiyammal
RespondentThe Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and Others
Excerpt:
.....old, petitioner's relatives namely vasanthi, wife of rajan, aged abut 40 years old, valli, wife of velu, aged about 25 years old, velu, son of kesavan, aged about 35 years old, maruthaye, daughter of rajan, aged about 22 years old, selvaraj, son of muniyandi, aged about 30 years old and minor children, namely sekar, son of gopal, aged about 12 years old, deva, son of velu, aged about 10 years old, vallarasu, son of selvaraj, aged about 6 years old, vinoth, son of selvaraj, aged about 3 years old, vicki, son of selvarai, aged about 1-1/2 years old before this court and set them at liberty.) s. nagamuthu, j. 1. the petitioner has come up with this habeas corpus petition alleging that the detenus, by name gopal, son of mariyappan, aged 33 years, patha mariyal, wife of gopal, aged 23 years,.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to produce the persons or bodies of the petitioner's son Gopal, son of Mariyappan, aged about 33 years old, petitioner's daughter-in-law Patha Mariyal, wife of Gopal, aged about 23 years old, petitioner's brother Rajan, son of Velliyan, aged about 45 years old, petitioner's relatives namely Vasanthi, Wife of Rajan, aged abut 40 years old, Valli, wife of Velu, aged about 25 years old, Velu, son of Kesavan, aged about 35 years old, Maruthaye, daughter of Rajan, aged about 22 years old, Selvaraj, son of Muniyandi, aged about 30 years old and minor children, namely Sekar, son of Gopal, aged about 12 years old, Deva, son of Velu, aged about 10 years old, Vallarasu, son of Selvaraj, aged about 6 years old, Vinoth, son of Selvaraj, aged about 3 years old, Vicki, son of Selvarai, aged about 1-1/2 years old before this Court and set them at liberty.)

S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that the detenus, by name Gopal, Son of Mariyappan, aged 33 years, Patha Mariyal, Wife of Gopal, aged 23 years, Rajan, Son of Velliyan, aged 45 years, Vasanthi, Wife of Rajan, aged 40 years, Valli, Wife of Velu, aged 25 years, Velu, Son of Kesavan, aged 35 years, Maruthaye, Daughter of Rajan, aged 22 years, Selvaraj, Son of Muniyandi, aged 30 years, Sekar, Son of Gopal, aged 12 years, Deva, Son of Velu, aged 10 years, Vallarasu, Son of Selvaraj, aged 6 years, Vinoth, Son of Selvaraj, aged 3 years and Vicki, Son of Selvarai, aged 1-1/2 years, were illegally detained by the respondent police.

2. Later, during the course of this Habeas Corpus Petition, it came to light that they were produced before the Court and legally remanded to custody. Thereafter, alleging that the detenus were manhandled by the police while in custody, which resulted in injuries including fracture, the petitioner has filed two Miscellaneous Petitions, viz., Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7004 of 2016, seeking interim direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the detenus for the illegal custodial torture and physical and mental injuries caused during the period between 29.04.2016 and 01.07.2016 and Crl.M.P. (MD)No.7005 of 2016, seeking interim direction by directing the respondents 7 and 8 to submit the records relating to the injuries sustained by one Selvaraj, S/o.Muniyandi and Gopal, S/o.Mariyappan.

3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenus were not detained illegally and they were not tortured at all.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would, however, submit that the detenus were manhandled only by the police while in illegal custody.

6. In our considered view, since the same has become a disputed question of fact, we cannot go into the said disputed questions of fact. Issuing interim direction for payment of compensation is possible, if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was illegal detention and also torture at the hands of the respondent police. Since the same has become a disputed question of fact, no interim direction, as prayed for, could be given.

7. Similarly, in respect of the production of the medical records, it is always open for the petitioner to secure the same under different jurisdiction.

8. So far as this Habeas Corpus Petition is concerned, since it relates only to the alleged illegal detention of the detenus and since they have been produced before the Court of law and remanded to judicial custody, no further relief could be granted.

9. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it may be left open for the petitioner and the other detenus to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum for the alleged injuries sustained by the detenus while in custody.

10. In such view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition isclosed, leaving it open for the petitioner and the other detenus towork out their remedies in the manner known to law both civil and criminal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //