Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70464 (MAD)

VENKATESAN v. The Superintendent of Police,

HCP/1158/2025 · 2025-07-24

M S Ramesh, V Lakshminarayanan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HCP.No.1158 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.1158 of 2025 Venkatesan … Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore Police District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mangalampet Police Station, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 606 104. 3.Dhanush … Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to produce the petitioner's daughter Ms.V.Anusakthi, daughter of Venkatesan, Female, aged 18 years, before this Court, set her at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramanareddy For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1158 of 2025 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) Complaining that the petitioner's daughter, who was born on 03.01.2007 and has completed 21 years of old, had gone missing, the petitioner had given a complaint to the second respondent and thereafter, the said complaint was registered as crime No.107 of 2025 under the caption "Woman Missing". Consequently, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed. 2. During the pendency of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the respondent police had produced the petitioner's daughter Ms.V.Anusakthi along with the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate II on 09.07.2025 and the learned Judicial Magistrate II had recorded the fact that the petitioner's daughter had married, one Dhanush at Chrompet Pillayar Temple and that, both of them were majors. It was also recorded that the petitioner/defacto complainant do not have any objection in sending his daughter along with hwe husband. 3. In the light of these developments, we do not deem this to be a case of unlawful custody of the petitioner's daughter, who has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1158 of 2025 consciously married the third respondent herein on her own choice. As such, no effective orders required to be passed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 4. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 24.07.2025 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore Police District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mangalampet Police Station, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 606 104. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. M.S.RAMESH, J. and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1158 of 2025 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. nl H.C.P.No.1158 of 2025 24.07.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis