Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the body or person of her husband, Mr. Siva, aged about 32 years, son of Dhevachandrabose, before the Court and set him at liberty. The respondents were the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, and the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sivagangai District. The petition was taken up for hearing on 22.04.2025. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the detenu had returned back to the home and hence was not pressing the Habeas Corpus Petition. The learned counsel also made an endorsement to that effect. The Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the materials placed before it, recorded the statement and endorsement. In view of the same, the Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition as not pressed. No merits were adjudicated. The Court did not issue any directions for production or release of the detenu, as the grievance had become infructuous upon the detenu's return. The final order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima.
Headnote
A) Habeas Corpus - Dismissal as Not Pressed - Article 226 Constitution of India - Habeas corpus petition filed for production of detenu; when matter came up for hearing, petitioner's counsel stated detenu had returned home and did not press the petition; Court accepted endorsement and dismissed petition as not pressed - Held no further orders required. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be entertained when the detenu has returned home and the petitioner does not press the petition.
Final Decision
Habeas Corpus Petition dismissed as not pressed.
Law Points
- A habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be dismissed as not pressed when the detenu returns home and the petitioner's counsel makes an endorsement withdrawing the petition.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (04) 32
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, Justice R. Poornima
Mr. M. Dinesh Hari Sudarsan for Petitioner; Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivaganai; 2. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sivagangai District.
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 for production of the detenu husband.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to produce the body or person of her husband Mr. Siva, aged about 32 years, son of Dhevachandrabose, before the Court and set him at liberty.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged detention of her husband and sought his production before the Court.
Issues
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be entertained when the detenu has returned home and the petitioner does not press the petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel stated that the detenu has returned back to the home and hence not pressing this Habeas Corpus Petition; the learned counsel also made an endorsement to that effect.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the detenu has returned home and the petitioner's counsel makes an endorsement not pressing the habeas corpus petition, the Court dismisses the petition as not pressed.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the detenu has return back to the home and hence not pressing this Habeas Corpus Petition.
In view of the same, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Procedural History
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, filed Habeas Corpus Petition H.C.P(MD)No.297 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, seeking production of her husband Mr. Siva. On 22.04.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the detenu had returned home and made an endorsement to that effect, not pressing the petition. The Court, in view of the same, dismissed the habeas corpus petition as not pressed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
