P. Kannammal Vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Selvi and P. Ramesh

Madras High Court 22 Oct 2010 H.C.P. No. 1966 of 2010 (2010) 10 MAD CK 0273
Bench: Division Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

H.C.P. No. 1966 of 2010

Hon'ble Bench

M. Chockalingam, J; C.S. Karnan, J

Advocates

A. Parveen, for the Appellant; Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mrs.P.Kannammal has brought forth this petition alleging that her elder brother aged 52, was found missing from 10.9.2010; that a complaint was given to the first Respondent on 16.9.2010; and that a case was registered for man missing in Crime No. 316/2010; but they have not yet secured him.

2. In response to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the enquiry revealed that she is the younger sister of the detenu; that she is 48 and he is 52; that he has already got married; that the second Respondent is his wife; that the third Respondent is the son of the detenu; that originally, he filed HMOP No. 25 of 2004 for divorce, and the same was also ordered in his favour; that apart from that, the second Respondent filed a maintenance case seeking maintenance from her husband, the detenu, and the same is also pending; that under the circumstances, on the complaint given by the Petitioner, a case has been registered, and now the investigation is pending.

3. After looking into the averments made and also the submissions made on either side, it would be quite evident that there was a strained relationship in the matrimony, and the detenu was missing. The second Respondent has also filed a maintenance case against the divorced husband. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of keeping the petition pending, it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to the first Respondent 3 police to investigate the case proper, secure him and produce before the concerned Court. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this petition is disposed of.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Read More