Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the mother of a minor girl. The petitioner alleged that her daughter, Annalakshmi, daughter of Sri Ram, aged about 16 years as per the prayer but described as 15 years old in the order, was missing and suspected to have been kidnapped by one Veeraganesh. The petitioner contended that the respondent police authorities were unable to trace the minor. Accordingly, she approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking a direction to the first and second respondents, namely the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, and the Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station, to secure and produce the body or person of the detenue before the court and hand over custody to the petitioner. The third respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District, was also impleaded as a respondent. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 09.04.2025, the court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Leninkumar, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that the detenue/girl had been secured and had joined with her mother, the petitioner herein. The petitioner and her daughter were present before the court. The petitioner stated that the child had come back. The court perused the materials placed before it and recorded the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor and the statement of the petitioner. The court observed that since the girl had been secured and had joined the mother, no further adjudication was required in the habeas corpus petition. The court disposed of the petition recording the same. The legal issue for consideration was whether the habeas corpus petition should be allowed when the detenue had already been secured and returned to the petitioner. The court's analysis was straightforward: habeas corpus is a remedy to produce a person alleged to be illegally detained; once the person has been produced or has voluntarily joined the petitioner, the purpose of the writ is fulfilled. The court did not go into the merits of the alleged kidnapping or any criminal liability of the suspected kidnapper. There were no previous decisions cited in the order. The judgment did not set any new legal precedent but applied the settled principle that a habeas corpus petition becomes infructuous when the detenue is no longer missing and is with the petitioner. The court's order was brief and disposed of the petition without any costs or further directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Mother filed habeas corpus petition alleging police unable to trace her 15-year-old daughter suspected kidnapped by one Veeraganesh. Additional Public Prosecutor reported detenue/girl was secured and joined with mother/petitioner. Court recorded that petitioner and daughter were present and petitioner confirmed child has come back, and disposed of petition. Held that no further order necessary once detenue returned to mother (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be disposed of when the detenue has been secured and joined with the petitioner/mother.
Final Decision
The Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of after recording that the detenue/girl was secured and joined with the petitioner/mother, and the petitioner confirmed the child has come back.
Law Points
- Habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India becomes infructuous when the detenue is secured and joins the petitioner
- no further adjudication required.
