T THANGARAJ UDAYAR Vs. OFFICER IN CHARGE, PROTECTIVE HOME FOR DESTITUTE WOMEN, ASTHAMPATTI, SALEM AND TWO OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner Thangaraj Udayar is the father of Thenmozhi, whose production before this Court to be set at liberty, has been sought for.

(2.) Facts which led to the filing of the writ petition will have to be narrated in brief. Thenmozhi stated to be aged about 19 years was allegedly kidnapped by third respondent Sakthivel on 27th April, 1992. On a complaint of the writ petitioner to the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District, Crime No. 126 of 1992, under Section 363 Indian Penal Code was registered, against the third respondent. While investigation was pending, it appears that Thenmozhi and Sakthivel (R.3) appeared before Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station (R.2) on 8.5.1992. Thereafter a petition was filed by the writ petitioner before Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Attur for custody of his daughter, Thenmozhi. Custody prayed for by the writ petitioner was ordered. Radiological examination of Thenmozhi revealed that she was aged above 19 years and was below 20 years.

(3.) While so, third respondent who got himself released on bail in Crime No. 126 of 1992, preferred a petition before the same Magistrate, pleading for the custody of the girl Thenmozhi, alleging that he had married her on 10th April, 1992, before the Registrar of Marriages, Salem. Learned Counsel for third respondent has produced before us, the true extract of the Marriage Register maintained by the Marriage Registrar, Salem. Serial Number of this marriage is 240 of 1992. It appears that the writ petitioner did not produce Thenmozhi before the Magistrate in spite of directions for some length of time and ultimately chose to produce her on 5.8.1992, before court. The second respondent appears to have felt the need for recording of a statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. from Thenmozhi, in view of the assertion of the third respondent, that Thenmozhi was kept under wrongful confinement, against her wish by the writ petitioner. The learned Magistrate, if he had also felt that there was a need to record a statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C, could have exercised his judicial discretion by directing her production, on a specified date for the said purpose. Unfortunately, the Magistrate had chosen to forward Thenmozhi to the Protective Home for Destitute Women situated at Asthampatli, Salem, pending recording of a statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate fixed 11.8.1992 as the date for recording the statement of Thenmozhi.