Madras High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition as Withdrawn. Father Seeks Production of Daughter but Withdraws Petition Without Adjudication.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai
  • 80
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by Esakki @ Esakkipandian, the father of Ramya, aged about 25 years, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondents, including the State of Tamil Nadu and police officials, to produce his daughter Ramya before the court and set her at liberty. The petition alleged illegal detention. During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. C. Susikumar, sought permission of the court to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition and made an endorsement to that effect. The court, comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima, passed an oral order on 05.02.2025. In view of the withdrawal request, the court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition as withdrawn. No legal issues were adjudicated, and no ratio decidendi was pronounced. The order of the court was solely procedural, disposing of the matter without going into merits.

Headnote

A) Habeas Corpus - Withdrawal - Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petition was filed by the father seeking production of his 25-year-old daughter from alleged illegal detention. The petitioner's counsel made an endorsement seeking permission to withdraw, and the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. (Paras 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

H.C.P(MD)No.157 of 2025

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 220

H.C.P(MD)No.157 of 2025

2025-02-05

Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, Justice R. Poornima

For Petitioner: Mr. C. Susikumar; For Respondents 1 and 2: Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Esakki @ Esakkipandian

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District; 2.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli; 3.A.Kathir

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Remedy Sought

Direction to the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter Ramya, aged about 25 years, before the court and set her at liberty.

Filing Reason

Petitioner, as father, alleged illegal detention of his daughter Ramya.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Habeas Corpus Petition and made an endorsement to that effect.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Habeas Corpus Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the same, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Procedural History

Habeas Corpus Petition H.C.P(MD)No.157 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by Esakki @ Esakkipandian, father of the detenue Ramya, seeking her production and liberty. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel made an endorsement to withdraw the petition. The court, by order dated 05.02.2025, dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions in Ex-Servicemen Dearness Relief Dispute; Upholds Denial of Dearness Relief on Pension to Re-employed Ex-Servicemen Under Government. Government Employees Form a Distinct Class from PSU Employees, and Executiv...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Amendment to Bihar Land Reforms Act and Rule as Ultra Vires; State Legislature Competence Ousted by Parliamentary Occupation of Minor Minerals Field. Second Proviso to Section 10(2) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rule 20(2)...