Skip to main content

Habeas corpus not meant for missing person cases, says HC

The Kerala high court has ruled that a habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained in the case of missing persons. The court clarified that a writ (court order) of habeas corpus is issued only for producing a detainee and to release him if the detention is illegal. Habeas corpus petitions are often filed by relatives and friends of persons who go missing.

The ruling was given by a division bench comprising justices Antony Dominic and Anil K Narendran while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by Rafeeq M of Edathanattukara in Palakkad. Rafeeq alleged that his uncle, 53-year-old Mammed alias Manuppa, was missing since May 18th last year and police had taken no action despite a complaint. He wanted the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus for tracing his uncle.

Director general of prosecution T Asaf Ali informed the court that person could not be traced and a final report was filed before Mannarkkad judicial first class magistrate court on September 25th.

Declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus, the court said, ".... Such being the situation, we are not satisfied that the petitioner could establish a case of illegal detention of the detenue to file this writ petition with a prayer (demand) of habeas corpus".

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Habeas-corpus-not-meant-for-missing-person-cases-says-HC/articleshow/31123362.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...