ARUNACHALAM Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H .C.P. No. 399 of 1994 was taken on file by this Court on 8.3.1994. Petitioner Chandra had prayed for issue of a habeas for production of Balaraman, her husband, before this Court, so that he could be set at liberty, alleging that the 4th Respondent was keeping him in illegal custody and wrongful confinement from the midnight of 16.2.1994. She had made two other prayers as well in the said Habeas Corpus Petition, one for directions to Respondents to pay a just and equitable compensation to her and the other for ordering of an independent and impartial enquiry by any officer of the Central Bureau of investigation in relation to the incident, which, according to her, led to wrongful confinement and illegal custody of her husband Balaraman.

(2.) AFTER notice, this Habeas Corpus Petitioner was disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court on 13.6.1994 along with H.C.P. No. 400 of 1994. The said Division Bench observed that it was common ground that a charge -sheet stood filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, who was seized of the matter and further the detenue has already been released on bail. Under such circumstances, this Court stated that the only question submitted for consideration was whether the detenus would be entitled to compensation for the alleged illegal detention in police custody. The said Division Bench went on to add that the factum of alleged illegal detention was denied by the Respondents and that matter had yet to be determined. It was the opinion of the said Division Bench that since the controversy related to facts, it could not be properly decided by it, and even otherwise it would not like to undertake such an investigation as the charge -sheet was already pending before the concerned Magistrate, The further observations of the said Division Bench read that the Code of Criminal Procedure provided several opportunities to the detenu to challenge the charge -sheet and seek discharge in accordance with law. In case the detenus are discharged, by holding that the charges against them were false and frivolous, the question of compensation will arise. In conclusion, the said Division Bench stated that the detenus would have to seek their remedy in a proper Court of law and in that view of the matter, they deemed it expedient to hold that no further action was required to be taken in those two H.C. Ps. They were accordingly dismissed.

(3.) IN H.C.M.P. No. 86 of 1995, the prayer is for staying of the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Panruti, pending disposal of H.C.P. No. 399 of 1994 : S.T.C. No. 628 of 1994 is a prosecution initiated against the husband of the Petitioner under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, alleging that the said prosecution was not true and the case was foisted with an ulterior motive a plea for stay of trial stood made. Interim stay of trial was ordered and the same continues till today.