Super order of THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P. No.728 of 2022 D. Shanthi Petitioner v 1 The State represented by The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police Vepery
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
H.C.P. No.728 of 2022
D. Shanthi Petitioner
v
1 The State represented by The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery
Chennai 600 007
2 The Inspector of Police V-6, Kolathur Police Station
Kolathur
Chennai 600 099
3 Ramya
4 S. Babu Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce the petitioner’s adopted son, viz., A.P.Dheeraj Maal, aged 17 years, S/o late Pandurangan, who is illegally detained in the hands of respondents 3 and 4, before this Court, hand over him to the petitioner and set him at liberty.
For petitioner Mr. M.Radhakrishnan for Mr. P. Pugalenthi
For RR 1 & 2 Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M.Sylvester John
For R3 Mr. C.S.S. Pillai appointed by Legal Aid
For R4 Mr. G. Arivarasan – Did not appear
For Bar Council of T.N. & Puducherry Mr. C.K. Chandrasekhar
Amicus Curiae Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Advocate
ORDER
This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking a direction to the police to secure the petitioner’s adopted son Dheeraj Maal from the illegitimately avaricious clutches of the respondents 3 and 4 and hand over him to the petitioner. 2 At the threshold, it is worth pointing out that though this is a nonstatutory habeas corpus petition seeking to secure a minor boy and produce him before this Court and hand over him to the petitioner, this is not a run-of-the-mill case, as is evident from the startling facts obtaining in this case to be discussed infra.
3 It is also pertinent to note that this case is no short of a replica of the case in Crl.O.P. No.14967 of 2016 involving Manoj Rajan, a multi-millionaire but a mentally-retarded person. The technical difference between the said case and the instant case is that the said case was instituted invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is in seizin before a Single Bench and the instant case, being an H.C.P., is considered by a Division Bench and the factual difference between these two cases is that Manoj Rajan, as observed earlier, is a mentally retarded person and an orphan, whereas, the detenu Dheeraj Maal has locomotor disability and seemingly, possesses a relatively lesser intelligence quotient than a prudent person, but, has a genuine adopted mother, unlike Manoj Rajan.
4 Notwithstanding the fact that the narrative leading to the institution of this case has been depicted in the earlier interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, at the cost of verbosity and for the sake of ready reference, we deem it fit to give a bird’s eye view of the facts leading to the filing of this petition, more so, when this is a final order.
5 For the sake of clarity and consequential better appreciation of facts, the dramatis personae in this case, will be adverted to by their name.
5.1 The detenu in this case is one Dheeraj Maal (for short “Dheeraj”), who was born by In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) method on 04.03.2005 to his parents Ambika and Pandurangan, who breathed their last on 18.04.2011 and 02.02.2022 respectively. The said Pandurangan was employed in the Traffic Department of the Chennai Port Trust as Section Superintendent and he retired voluntarily on
30.04.2003. The Pandurangan – Ambika couple, owing to their indisposition, gave Dheeraj in adoption to the Durairaj – Shanthi couple, their close relatives, who were living along with themselves (Pandurangan – Ambika copule), vide adoption deed dated 10.02.2006 and this is beyond cavil.
5.2 It is worth mentioning that Pandurangan had, in his name, at least, three buildings and two lands in Poombugaar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai, besides three lands measuring 20,196 sq. ft. in Guduvanchery and two house plots measuring 1,800 sq. ft. apiece in Thiroor Village in Tiuruvallur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. It would not be out of place to state here that the very factum of Dheeraj being a multi-millionaire, is apparently the reason that made Ramya
(claiming to be the step-sister of Dheeraj) and Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi (for short “Babu”) take custody of Dheeraj from Shanthi, resulting in Shanthi moving this habeas corpus petition.
5.3 Be that as it may, to continue with the narration of facts, on the demise of Durairaj on 09.06.2016, Shanthi was the only person to take care of Dheeraj.
5.4 Meanwhile, Pandurangan had left a will dated 28.12.2011
bequeathing all his properties to Dheeraj and to execute the said will after his demise, in the said will, he nominated Shanthi and Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi, the fourth respondent (“Babu” for short), as executors. Apropos it is to state at this juncture that Pandurangan was swayed by the misrepresentation of Babu that he is an advocate. Why this Court uses the word “misrepresentation” could be discerned in the following paragraphs.
5.5 According to Shanthi, when Pandurangan took steps to modify the will dated 28.12.2011 after coming to know that Babu is not an advocate, Pandurangan was threatened of dire consequences by Babu and not stopping with that, Babu made Pandurangan execute a General Power of Attorney in respect of the properties situated in Guduvanchery in favour of himself and one advocate by name Sri Muruga; while so, after the demise of Pandurangan on 02.02.2022, one fine day, Ramya, the third respondent and her husband, under the influence of Babu, barged into her house, took Dheeraj under her control and prevented Shanthi from meeting him; on 11.02.2022, the trio was missing and on a complaint given to the police by Shanthi, both Shanthi and Ramya were advised by the police to take care of Dheeraj; when things stood thus, on 25.03.2022, Dheeraj was missing which made Shanthi lodge a complaint with police against Ramya and Babu; even after a month or so, since Dheeraj was missing, Shanthi preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking the relief stated in the opening paragraph.
6 At this juncture, it needs to be stated as to how Ramya gains entry in this case. According to her, she was born to one Nagarathinam, first wife of Pandurangan and since her mother Nagarathinam was indisposed, Pandurangan married Ambika, Dheeraj’s mother; thus, she is the step-sister of Dheeraj; Nagarathinam expired on 14.04.2001; Shanthi, a distant relative of Ambika, came as a domestic help and by having had illicit relationship with Pandurangan, Shanthi is attempting to usurp all his properties. This is the gist of Ramya’s complaint to the police as a counter complaint to the one filed by Shanthi.
7 Thus, since both Shanthi and Ramya were fighting for Dheeraj’s custody, Dheeraj was handed over to the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) in Shenoy Nagar, Chennai.
8 However, this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2022, finding that Dheeraj was brought up only by Shanthi for about 16 long years since he was 1 year old, directed the police to hand over Dheeraj’s custody to Shanthi, as an interim measure, and even now, he continues to be in Shanthi’s custody.
9 Coming to Babu, it is his claim that he obtained Law Degree from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, in support of which, he produced a photocopy of the B.L. degree certificate. However, even according to him, he did not enrol himself as an advocate. Smelling a rat over the genuineness of Babu’s Law Degree certificate, this Court, vide order dated 27.07.2022, directed Babu to be present for the hearing on 28.07.2022, besides directing Mr. C.K.Chandrasekar, Standing Counsel for the State Bar Council, to assist this Court.
10 During the course of hearing on 28.07.2022, an e-mail communication of Bharathidasan University dated 27.07.2022 was produced before this Court by its Standing Counsel, as per which, it is limpid that the Law Degree certificate of Babu is not genuine. Even after Babu was shown this communication, he continued to stick on to his stand and he was audacious to the extent of submitting his Law Degree certificate along with a hand-written covering letter dated 28.07.2022 in the form of an affidavit, which had already been scanned and reproduced in the order dated 28.07.2022 and to avoid prolixity, the same is not extracted in this order. But, suffice it to point out that the said letter does not seem to have been written by a person who claims himself to be a law graduate, for, it contains umpteen mistakes. Since this Court was prima facie satisfied that Babu’s act of fabricating Law Degree certificate requires initiation of criminal case against him, this Court directed the Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police, to depute an officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who shall register a case against Babu and arrest him for the offence of fabrication of document and file a final report.
Further, by the said order, the State Bar Council was also directed to ascertain whether any other complaint is pending against Babu.
11 In pursuance of the order dated 28.07.2022, a case in Cr. No.162 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468,471 and 34 IPC was registered by the Central Crime Branch, Forgery Investigation Wing, Vepery, Chennai, against Babu (A1) and Ramya (A2) for fabrication of documents and Babu was arrested on 15.08.2022.
12 While so, during the course of hearing on 16.08.2022, on which day, Mr.Amalraj, Chairman of the State Bar Council was present, this Court was apprised that Sri Muruga, advocate, to whom General Power of Attorney was given by Pandurangan, along with Babu, was not only a Member of the State Bar
Council, but, also a member of its Enrolment Committee and Disciplinary Committee and that there is an order passed by this Court against him which was yet to be implemented and that he had acted in collusion with Babu in his attempt to usurp the properties of Pandurangan. During the same hearing, it was further submitted across the Bar that both Sri Muruga and also one Michael Stanis Prabhu, against whom also, there are complaints, have resigned from their respective posts. Noteworthy it is that on 16.08.2022, Mr. Velmurugan, learnedcounsel for Ramya, (a Member of the State Bar Council), withdrew his
appearance, the reason for the same being self-explanatory.
13 In the course of hearing on 06.09.2022, it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Babu was detained under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by branding him as a Goonda vide detention order dated 02.09.2022 and that a case in Thakkolam P.S. Cr.No.54 of 2022 was registered against Sri Muruga. However, in H.C.P. No.2292 of 2022 filed by Babu’s wife, the detention order of Babu was quashed vide order dated 04.07.2023 and Babu was set at liberty.
14 On 06.09.2022, Mr.Rubert Barnabas, learned counsel for Michael
Stanis Prabhu, submitted that in addition to Sri Muruga and Michael Stanis
Prabhu, there are seven other Bar Council members, viz., V. Karthikeyan, G. Mohana Krishnan, N.Marappan, B.Ashok, M. Rajendhra Kumar, K.R.R. Aiyappamani and R. Ayyavoo, with criminal background holding significant posts in the State Bar Council. On the same day, Ramya also appeared in person and submitted before this Court that none is inclined to appear for her and hence, pleaded that a lawyer may be appointed by this Court to defend her case, pursuant to which, on the directions of this Court, the High Court Legal Services Committee appointed Mr. C.S.S. Pillai as counsel for Ramya.
15 While so, when this case came up for hearing on 10.11.2023, this
Bench directed that if any complaint is pending against Sri Muruga and Michael Stanis Prabhu, the same shall be placed before the Committee presided by
V.Bharathidasan, J. or M. Sathyanarayanan, J. and further requested the said Committee to conclude the enquiry at the earliest. The relevant portion of the said order is usefully extracted below:
“4. When there are complaints against the elected members of the Bar Council, in order to instill confidence in the minds of the public, it would be appropriate that complaints, if any, relating to the said members, are placed before the Committee concerned, as per the order dated 01.11.2023 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30262 of 2023 (T.Sundar Rajan and anothr Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry & 4 others). The Division Bench, in the said order, has referred to the order dated 29.09.2022 of the
Supreme Court in Chraranjeet Singh Chnderpal V.Vasant D.Salunkhu & Ors in Cont.Pet.(C) No.309 of 2022 in C.A.No.7478 of 2019, wherein, it was reiterated that all the State Bar Councils concerned, before whom the complaints are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India, Disciplinary Committee, which shall take all steps to complete the case within a time limit by following the principles of natural justice, including providing reasonable opportunity.
5. Hence, in case, any complaint is pending against C. Sri Muruga and T.Michael Stains Prabhu, the same must be placed before the Committee presided by V.Bharathidasan, J. or M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and we request the Committee to complete the enquiry and decide the issue as early as possible. Further, the list of complaints will have to be forwarded to the Committee within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
16 As on date, Dheeraj, who was born on 04.03.2005, has attained majority and he is present in person along with Shanthi and we interacted with him and found that barring his locomotor disability, he does not suffer from any major ailment and that he is able to comprehend the questions posed to him and give answers suitably. More importantly, to a pointed question as to whether he is being taken care of well by Shanthi, he answered in the affirmative and in fact, said that Shanthi is his relative and he is willing to be taken care of by her.
17 From the narrative portrayed above, it can be discerned that there have been many a twist and turn in the form of entries by Babu, Ramya and Sri Muruga and there have been collusions between Babu and Ramya, on the one hand, and Babu and Sri Muruga, on the other, in their venture to share the booty.
18 Be that as it may, today, Mr. C.K. Satchithanandam, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, submitted a status report of even date, which is worth extracting as under:
2] It is submitted that On 09.08.2022, the complainant
Tmt.D.Shanthi, Female, aged 56, W/o.M.Durairaj, No.19-A, 11th Cross Street,
Poombugar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai-99, has lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, stating that she has been permanently residing in the above villa since 2013. She has been accompanied by her husband Thiru. M. Durairaj and her uncle Thiru.G.Pandurangan, male, aged 74, s/o Gopal who is the husband of her aunt Smt. Ambika and their son as well as her adopted son A.P.Dheeraj Maal. The above property where they live was settled to her aunt Tmt.Ambika by the complainant’s uncle Thiru. Pandurangan. The complainant’s aunt Tmt. Ambika passed away in 2011. Later, the complainant’s husband Thiru. Durairaj also had passed away in 2016. During the year 2006, the complainant’s uncle and her aunt have gave their son A.P. Dheeraj Maal to the complainant’s husband for adoption. Further, the complainant’s uncle had died on 02.02.2022. After the demise of the complainant’s uncle on that day of 02.02.2022, a fake lawyer named Thiru.S. Babu, Tmt. Ramya along with her husband Thiru. Ponnusamy and Thiru. Jayakumar trespassed into the complainant’s house. Further, the above persons threatened to kill the complainant and forcibly chased her out of the house and prevented her to conduct the last rites to the complainant’s deceased uncle. They have also threatened and illegally confined her adopted son Dheeraj Maal, in a separate room in the house. On the basis of a complaint lodged at V-6 Kolathur Police Station on 11.02.2022, the Inspector of Police concerned had conducted an enquiry. While the above investigation was pending, the complainant had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in H.C.P. No.728/2022 based on which an inquiry was conducted and the accused
Thiru. S. Babu and Tmt. Ramya were also ordered to appear before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Thiru. S. Babu, who appeared before the court, claimed to have an advocate and submitted the certificates of graduation in law to the Hon’ble High Court claiming that they were issued by Bharathidasan University of Trichy. On verification, the certificates were found to be fake and it was found by the Hon’ble High Court Judges that Thiru. S. Babu has been defrauding many people by claiming to be a lawyer for the past 20 years without studying the law. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order on the above H.C.P. 728/2022 directing the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, to take action against Thiru. S. Babu, according to law. Hence, the complainant has requested to take appropriate action against Thiru. S. Babu and Tmt.Ramya who prepared fake documents and filed them in Madras High Court and grabbed the complainant’s adopted son property.
3] It is submitted that, based on the direction of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in H.C.P. No.728/2022 dated 28.07.2022, I have received the complaint through proper channel and registered a case in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.162/2022 u/s 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on 09.08.2022 at 1600 hours and took up investigation of the case.
4] It is submitted that, on 11-08-2022, the following documents 1) the fake BL Degree certificate 2) Affidavit written by Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before this Hon’ble Court 3) Letter received from the Bharathidasan University about the genuineness of the degree certificate and 4) Copy of Aadhar card which were submitted by the accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi were received from The Registrar High Court of Judicature Chennai for the purpose of investigation. On the same day, the genuineness letter has been received from the Bharathidasan University through email which discloses that the certificate produced by the accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before this Hon’ble Court is not genuine.
5] It is submitted that, on 15-08-2022, the accused A1.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi was arrested and recorded the voluntary confession statement, in this he stated that he had received all the fake documents including the fake BL certificate from one Adv.Senthilkumar of Thirumangalam in order to grab the property of Mr.Pandurangan.
6] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the wide publicity given through the Tamil and English news paper regarding the arrest of the fake adcvocate accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi.
7] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the keys of the residence i.e., No.19-A, 11th Cross Street, Poombugar
Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099 (Which was locked by the accused Tmt.Ramya) was received from Tmt.Ramya and handed over to defacto complainant Tmt.Shanthi on 18.08.2022.
8] It is submitted that, on the orders of the Special Court for CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai, the said accused Tr.Babu @ Babu sanjeevi was taken on police custody from 25.08.2022 to 26.08.2022 and on interrogation, he confessed about the offences committed by him and along with his associates Tmt.Ramya and others. The same was recorded. The fake SSLC and 12th std certificates pertained to the accused Tr.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi were seized under the cover of Mahazar.
9] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the V.6 Kolathur P S CSR.Nos.42, 43, 152, 242/2022 were received and the investigation proceedings clubbed with in CCB Cr.No162/2022.
10] It is submitted that, the accused Tr.Babu @BabuSanjeevi has was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda ” in Detention order No. 278/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.09.2022 .
11] It is submitted that, the Birth Certificate of Tmt.Ramya bearing S.No.41837, Birth Date 02.06.1992, issued Date 07.06.1992 which was produced by A2. Tmt.Ramya before the V-6 Kolathur Police Station has verified with Zonal Health Officer, Chennai Corporation, Zone-5 and found to be fake.
12] It is submitted that, the Legal Heir Certificate of Pandurangan Certificate No. TN-7202204271783 Dated 13.05.2022 which was filed by A1 S.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in his type set was verified with the Thasidlar, Ayanavaram, Chennai. In this the Thasildhar Ayanavaram replied that this Legal Heir Certificate has been issued on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant A2 Tmt.Ramya. Then one of the document i.e Death Certificate of one Nagarathinam (alleged and claimed as A2 Tmt.Ramya’s mother) was verified with Zonal Health Officer Zone-6, Chennai Corporation and found to be fake.
13] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to the Traffic Manager, Port Authority, Chennai-01 and obtained the copies of service book of the deceased G.Pandurangan in which he clearly mentioned that his wife R.Ambica is the only family member of him as on 22.05.2003.
14] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to The Sub Registrar, Sembiam and obtained the certified copy of the Will document bearing Doc No.89/2011/Bk1 dt.28.12.2011 which reflects that Dheeraj Maal is the only son of Tr.Pandurangan and Ambika.
15] It is submitted that, on 17.10.2022 both accused Tmt.Ramya, w/o.Ponnusamy and A3.Tr.Ponnusamy, s/o.Kuppan were enquired U/s.41A Cr.PC.
16] It is submitted that, the Police notice were issued to Tr.C.SriMuruga, TrK.Anjenayan, Tr.K.Sathish Kumar and on they were enquired their statements were recorded.
17] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to the Joint Director, State Board of School Examination regarding the genuineness of the secondary school mark list Reg No.417055/April 1983 and +2 mark list Reg No.629413/April 1985 of accused Tr.S.Babu and reply received, in which it is visible in crystal clear the Reg No.417055/April 1983 belongs to one Tmt.M.kanagamani Ammal and another Reg No. 629413/April 1985 belongs to one Tr.K.Alagendran.
18] It is submitted that, the letter was issued to the Head Master, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Koradachery and reply was received. It is stated that Tr.S.Babu was not studied in that school during the educational year 1982-1983, 1984-1985. Moreover, by that years the school name is Govt HSS KORADACHERI, where as the certificated printed with the school name GOVT BOYS HR SEC SCHOOL KORADACHERY.
19] It is submitted that, the witnesses Tr.G.Arivarasan, Tr.R.Manigandan, Tr.Rajan, Tr.G.Murugan, Tr.K.Selvakumar, Dr.Kumar,
Tr.S.Senthilkumar, Tr.C.Selvaraj, Tmt.Abarna, Tmt.Kayalvizhi, Tr.A.Sherbin Arul, Tmt.Chitra, Tr.Kumaradevan, Tr.Karthikeyan and Inspector Tr.Aju Kumar were examined and their statements are recorded and investigation is yet to be
completed.” (emphasis supplied)
19 From the aforesaid status report, the belowmentioned facts come to
light:
i. The Law Degree certificated produced by Babu is fake;
ii. The death certificate of Nagarathinam produced by Ramya to show that she was born to the Pandurangan – Nagarathinam couple is fake;
iii. In the service register of Pandurangan maintained by the Chennai Port Trust, only Ambika has been shown as the family member;
iv. The X Standard and XII Standard certificates produced by Babu do not pertain to him but to Kanagamani Ammal and Alagendran, respectively.
20 In the light of the clinching facts discernible from the status report, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the trio comprising Babu, Ramya and Sri Muruga have acted in tandem and left no stone unturned to project as if they are good Samaritans and on the other hand, they have not produced any shred of evidence to disprove the deed dated 10.02.2006, in and by which, Dheeraj was given in adoption to the Durairaj – Shanthi couple. This Court could infer from the turn of events that Babu had made an attempt to exclude Shanthi, who was also appointed as an executor of the will along with himself and to take exclusive custody of the physically-challenged boy with the oblique motive of grabbing the properties left by his father Pandurangan.
21 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to keep this habeas corpus petition pending any more and hence, proceeds to issue the following slew of directions and observation:
i. As regards the future upkeep of Dheeraj and maintenance of properties devolving on him, we appoint Mr. M.K. Kabir, Senior Advocate and Mrs.Chitra Narayanan, Advocate, as guardians, who have agreed to extend their services pro bono and they are requested to monitor the upkeep of Dheeraj by Shanthi and also admit him in a school, bearing in mind, his disability factor.
ii. Shanthi shall act as per the adoption deed executed by Pandurangan and continue to be the custodian of Dheeraj by receiving the rental income from nine properties, which, we were told by her, works out to Rs.35,000/- per month and shall not alienate any of the properties sans Court’s permission.
iii Shanthi shall maintain an account of income and expenditure and submit the same to this Court once in six months and in case, Shanthi is required to expend any amount for Dheeraj exceeding Rs.25,000/-, she shall go ahead only after getting prior permission from this Court.
iv A copy of this order shall be marked to the Inspector General of Registration, who, in turn, shall forward a copy of the same to the Sub Registrars concerned within whose jurisdiction, the Guduvanchery, Thiruvallur and Kolathur properties of Dheeraj are situated, so that no alienation is made by any land shark.
v The State Bar Council shall comply with the direction issued by this
Bench in paragraph 5 of the order dated 10.11.2023 in letter and spirit sans delay.
vi The case in CCB, Vepery Cr.No.162 of 2022 shall be continued to be investigated and brought to its logical conclusion at the earliest and a final report be filed before the jurisdictional Court.
vii The second respondent police shall afford adequate protection to
Shanthi and Dheeraj.
viii Needless it is to state that in case, Dheeraj wants to dispose of any of the properties left by his father Pandurangan, it can be done in the manner known to law, for which , Mr. M.K. Kabir and Mrs. Chitra Narayanan, Court appointed guardians, are requested to render their assistance.
22 While issuing the aforesaid directions and observation, this Court hastens to add that this Court is not oblivious of the scope of this habeas corpus petition and that the aforesaid directions are issued only in order to protect the interests of Dheeraj, given the peculiar facts obtaining in this case.
23 Before parting, this Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
H.C.P. No.728 of 2022
D. Shanthi Petitioner
v
1 The State represented by The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery
Chennai 600 007
2 The Inspector of Police V-6, Kolathur Police Station
Kolathur
Chennai 600 099
3 Ramya
4 S. Babu Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce the petitioner’s adopted son, viz., A.P.Dheeraj Maal, aged 17 years, S/o late Pandurangan, who is illegally detained in the hands of respondents 3 and 4, before this Court, hand over him to the petitioner and set him at liberty.
For petitioner Mr. M.Radhakrishnan for Mr. P. Pugalenthi
For RR 1 & 2 Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M.Sylvester John
For R3 Mr. C.S.S. Pillai appointed by Legal Aid
For R4 Mr. G. Arivarasan – Did not appear
For Bar Council of T.N. & Puducherry Mr. C.K. Chandrasekhar
Amicus Curiae Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Advocate
ORDER
This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking a direction to the police to secure the petitioner’s adopted son Dheeraj Maal from the illegitimately avaricious clutches of the respondents 3 and 4 and hand over him to the petitioner. 2 At the threshold, it is worth pointing out that though this is a nonstatutory habeas corpus petition seeking to secure a minor boy and produce him before this Court and hand over him to the petitioner, this is not a run-of-the-mill case, as is evident from the startling facts obtaining in this case to be discussed infra.
3 It is also pertinent to note that this case is no short of a replica of the case in Crl.O.P. No.14967 of 2016 involving Manoj Rajan, a multi-millionaire but a mentally-retarded person. The technical difference between the said case and the instant case is that the said case was instituted invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is in seizin before a Single Bench and the instant case, being an H.C.P., is considered by a Division Bench and the factual difference between these two cases is that Manoj Rajan, as observed earlier, is a mentally retarded person and an orphan, whereas, the detenu Dheeraj Maal has locomotor disability and seemingly, possesses a relatively lesser intelligence quotient than a prudent person, but, has a genuine adopted mother, unlike Manoj Rajan.
4 Notwithstanding the fact that the narrative leading to the institution of this case has been depicted in the earlier interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, at the cost of verbosity and for the sake of ready reference, we deem it fit to give a bird’s eye view of the facts leading to the filing of this petition, more so, when this is a final order.
5 For the sake of clarity and consequential better appreciation of facts, the dramatis personae in this case, will be adverted to by their name.
5.1 The detenu in this case is one Dheeraj Maal (for short “Dheeraj”), who was born by In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) method on 04.03.2005 to his parents Ambika and Pandurangan, who breathed their last on 18.04.2011 and 02.02.2022 respectively. The said Pandurangan was employed in the Traffic Department of the Chennai Port Trust as Section Superintendent and he retired voluntarily on
30.04.2003. The Pandurangan – Ambika couple, owing to their indisposition, gave Dheeraj in adoption to the Durairaj – Shanthi couple, their close relatives, who were living along with themselves (Pandurangan – Ambika copule), vide adoption deed dated 10.02.2006 and this is beyond cavil.
5.2 It is worth mentioning that Pandurangan had, in his name, at least, three buildings and two lands in Poombugaar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai, besides three lands measuring 20,196 sq. ft. in Guduvanchery and two house plots measuring 1,800 sq. ft. apiece in Thiroor Village in Tiuruvallur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. It would not be out of place to state here that the very factum of Dheeraj being a multi-millionaire, is apparently the reason that made Ramya
(claiming to be the step-sister of Dheeraj) and Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi (for short “Babu”) take custody of Dheeraj from Shanthi, resulting in Shanthi moving this habeas corpus petition.
5.3 Be that as it may, to continue with the narration of facts, on the demise of Durairaj on 09.06.2016, Shanthi was the only person to take care of Dheeraj.
5.4 Meanwhile, Pandurangan had left a will dated 28.12.2011
bequeathing all his properties to Dheeraj and to execute the said will after his demise, in the said will, he nominated Shanthi and Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi, the fourth respondent (“Babu” for short), as executors. Apropos it is to state at this juncture that Pandurangan was swayed by the misrepresentation of Babu that he is an advocate. Why this Court uses the word “misrepresentation” could be discerned in the following paragraphs.
5.5 According to Shanthi, when Pandurangan took steps to modify the will dated 28.12.2011 after coming to know that Babu is not an advocate, Pandurangan was threatened of dire consequences by Babu and not stopping with that, Babu made Pandurangan execute a General Power of Attorney in respect of the properties situated in Guduvanchery in favour of himself and one advocate by name Sri Muruga; while so, after the demise of Pandurangan on 02.02.2022, one fine day, Ramya, the third respondent and her husband, under the influence of Babu, barged into her house, took Dheeraj under her control and prevented Shanthi from meeting him; on 11.02.2022, the trio was missing and on a complaint given to the police by Shanthi, both Shanthi and Ramya were advised by the police to take care of Dheeraj; when things stood thus, on 25.03.2022, Dheeraj was missing which made Shanthi lodge a complaint with police against Ramya and Babu; even after a month or so, since Dheeraj was missing, Shanthi preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking the relief stated in the opening paragraph.
6 At this juncture, it needs to be stated as to how Ramya gains entry in this case. According to her, she was born to one Nagarathinam, first wife of Pandurangan and since her mother Nagarathinam was indisposed, Pandurangan married Ambika, Dheeraj’s mother; thus, she is the step-sister of Dheeraj; Nagarathinam expired on 14.04.2001; Shanthi, a distant relative of Ambika, came as a domestic help and by having had illicit relationship with Pandurangan, Shanthi is attempting to usurp all his properties. This is the gist of Ramya’s complaint to the police as a counter complaint to the one filed by Shanthi.
7 Thus, since both Shanthi and Ramya were fighting for Dheeraj’s custody, Dheeraj was handed over to the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) in Shenoy Nagar, Chennai.
8 However, this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2022, finding that Dheeraj was brought up only by Shanthi for about 16 long years since he was 1 year old, directed the police to hand over Dheeraj’s custody to Shanthi, as an interim measure, and even now, he continues to be in Shanthi’s custody.
9 Coming to Babu, it is his claim that he obtained Law Degree from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, in support of which, he produced a photocopy of the B.L. degree certificate. However, even according to him, he did not enrol himself as an advocate. Smelling a rat over the genuineness of Babu’s Law Degree certificate, this Court, vide order dated 27.07.2022, directed Babu to be present for the hearing on 28.07.2022, besides directing Mr. C.K.Chandrasekar, Standing Counsel for the State Bar Council, to assist this Court.
10 During the course of hearing on 28.07.2022, an e-mail communication of Bharathidasan University dated 27.07.2022 was produced before this Court by its Standing Counsel, as per which, it is limpid that the Law Degree certificate of Babu is not genuine. Even after Babu was shown this communication, he continued to stick on to his stand and he was audacious to the extent of submitting his Law Degree certificate along with a hand-written covering letter dated 28.07.2022 in the form of an affidavit, which had already been scanned and reproduced in the order dated 28.07.2022 and to avoid prolixity, the same is not extracted in this order. But, suffice it to point out that the said letter does not seem to have been written by a person who claims himself to be a law graduate, for, it contains umpteen mistakes. Since this Court was prima facie satisfied that Babu’s act of fabricating Law Degree certificate requires initiation of criminal case against him, this Court directed the Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police, to depute an officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who shall register a case against Babu and arrest him for the offence of fabrication of document and file a final report.
Further, by the said order, the State Bar Council was also directed to ascertain whether any other complaint is pending against Babu.
11 In pursuance of the order dated 28.07.2022, a case in Cr. No.162 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468,471 and 34 IPC was registered by the Central Crime Branch, Forgery Investigation Wing, Vepery, Chennai, against Babu (A1) and Ramya (A2) for fabrication of documents and Babu was arrested on 15.08.2022.
12 While so, during the course of hearing on 16.08.2022, on which day, Mr.Amalraj, Chairman of the State Bar Council was present, this Court was apprised that Sri Muruga, advocate, to whom General Power of Attorney was given by Pandurangan, along with Babu, was not only a Member of the State Bar
Council, but, also a member of its Enrolment Committee and Disciplinary Committee and that there is an order passed by this Court against him which was yet to be implemented and that he had acted in collusion with Babu in his attempt to usurp the properties of Pandurangan. During the same hearing, it was further submitted across the Bar that both Sri Muruga and also one Michael Stanis Prabhu, against whom also, there are complaints, have resigned from their respective posts. Noteworthy it is that on 16.08.2022, Mr. Velmurugan, learnedcounsel for Ramya, (a Member of the State Bar Council), withdrew his
appearance, the reason for the same being self-explanatory.
13 In the course of hearing on 06.09.2022, it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Babu was detained under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by branding him as a Goonda vide detention order dated 02.09.2022 and that a case in Thakkolam P.S. Cr.No.54 of 2022 was registered against Sri Muruga. However, in H.C.P. No.2292 of 2022 filed by Babu’s wife, the detention order of Babu was quashed vide order dated 04.07.2023 and Babu was set at liberty.
14 On 06.09.2022, Mr.Rubert Barnabas, learned counsel for Michael
Stanis Prabhu, submitted that in addition to Sri Muruga and Michael Stanis
Prabhu, there are seven other Bar Council members, viz., V. Karthikeyan, G. Mohana Krishnan, N.Marappan, B.Ashok, M. Rajendhra Kumar, K.R.R. Aiyappamani and R. Ayyavoo, with criminal background holding significant posts in the State Bar Council. On the same day, Ramya also appeared in person and submitted before this Court that none is inclined to appear for her and hence, pleaded that a lawyer may be appointed by this Court to defend her case, pursuant to which, on the directions of this Court, the High Court Legal Services Committee appointed Mr. C.S.S. Pillai as counsel for Ramya.
15 While so, when this case came up for hearing on 10.11.2023, this
Bench directed that if any complaint is pending against Sri Muruga and Michael Stanis Prabhu, the same shall be placed before the Committee presided by
V.Bharathidasan, J. or M. Sathyanarayanan, J. and further requested the said Committee to conclude the enquiry at the earliest. The relevant portion of the said order is usefully extracted below:
“4. When there are complaints against the elected members of the Bar Council, in order to instill confidence in the minds of the public, it would be appropriate that complaints, if any, relating to the said members, are placed before the Committee concerned, as per the order dated 01.11.2023 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30262 of 2023 (T.Sundar Rajan and anothr Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry & 4 others). The Division Bench, in the said order, has referred to the order dated 29.09.2022 of the
Supreme Court in Chraranjeet Singh Chnderpal V.Vasant D.Salunkhu & Ors in Cont.Pet.(C) No.309 of 2022 in C.A.No.7478 of 2019, wherein, it was reiterated that all the State Bar Councils concerned, before whom the complaints are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India, Disciplinary Committee, which shall take all steps to complete the case within a time limit by following the principles of natural justice, including providing reasonable opportunity.
5. Hence, in case, any complaint is pending against C. Sri Muruga and T.Michael Stains Prabhu, the same must be placed before the Committee presided by V.Bharathidasan, J. or M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and we request the Committee to complete the enquiry and decide the issue as early as possible. Further, the list of complaints will have to be forwarded to the Committee within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
16 As on date, Dheeraj, who was born on 04.03.2005, has attained majority and he is present in person along with Shanthi and we interacted with him and found that barring his locomotor disability, he does not suffer from any major ailment and that he is able to comprehend the questions posed to him and give answers suitably. More importantly, to a pointed question as to whether he is being taken care of well by Shanthi, he answered in the affirmative and in fact, said that Shanthi is his relative and he is willing to be taken care of by her.
17 From the narrative portrayed above, it can be discerned that there have been many a twist and turn in the form of entries by Babu, Ramya and Sri Muruga and there have been collusions between Babu and Ramya, on the one hand, and Babu and Sri Muruga, on the other, in their venture to share the booty.
18 Be that as it may, today, Mr. C.K. Satchithanandam, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, submitted a status report of even date, which is worth extracting as under:
2] It is submitted that On 09.08.2022, the complainant
Tmt.D.Shanthi, Female, aged 56, W/o.M.Durairaj, No.19-A, 11th Cross Street,
Poombugar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai-99, has lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, stating that she has been permanently residing in the above villa since 2013. She has been accompanied by her husband Thiru. M. Durairaj and her uncle Thiru.G.Pandurangan, male, aged 74, s/o Gopal who is the husband of her aunt Smt. Ambika and their son as well as her adopted son A.P.Dheeraj Maal. The above property where they live was settled to her aunt Tmt.Ambika by the complainant’s uncle Thiru. Pandurangan. The complainant’s aunt Tmt. Ambika passed away in 2011. Later, the complainant’s husband Thiru. Durairaj also had passed away in 2016. During the year 2006, the complainant’s uncle and her aunt have gave their son A.P. Dheeraj Maal to the complainant’s husband for adoption. Further, the complainant’s uncle had died on 02.02.2022. After the demise of the complainant’s uncle on that day of 02.02.2022, a fake lawyer named Thiru.S. Babu, Tmt. Ramya along with her husband Thiru. Ponnusamy and Thiru. Jayakumar trespassed into the complainant’s house. Further, the above persons threatened to kill the complainant and forcibly chased her out of the house and prevented her to conduct the last rites to the complainant’s deceased uncle. They have also threatened and illegally confined her adopted son Dheeraj Maal, in a separate room in the house. On the basis of a complaint lodged at V-6 Kolathur Police Station on 11.02.2022, the Inspector of Police concerned had conducted an enquiry. While the above investigation was pending, the complainant had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in H.C.P. No.728/2022 based on which an inquiry was conducted and the accused
Thiru. S. Babu and Tmt. Ramya were also ordered to appear before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Thiru. S. Babu, who appeared before the court, claimed to have an advocate and submitted the certificates of graduation in law to the Hon’ble High Court claiming that they were issued by Bharathidasan University of Trichy. On verification, the certificates were found to be fake and it was found by the Hon’ble High Court Judges that Thiru. S. Babu has been defrauding many people by claiming to be a lawyer for the past 20 years without studying the law. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order on the above H.C.P. 728/2022 directing the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, to take action against Thiru. S. Babu, according to law. Hence, the complainant has requested to take appropriate action against Thiru. S. Babu and Tmt.Ramya who prepared fake documents and filed them in Madras High Court and grabbed the complainant’s adopted son property.
3] It is submitted that, based on the direction of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in H.C.P. No.728/2022 dated 28.07.2022, I have received the complaint through proper channel and registered a case in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.162/2022 u/s 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on 09.08.2022 at 1600 hours and took up investigation of the case.
4] It is submitted that, on 11-08-2022, the following documents 1) the fake BL Degree certificate 2) Affidavit written by Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before this Hon’ble Court 3) Letter received from the Bharathidasan University about the genuineness of the degree certificate and 4) Copy of Aadhar card which were submitted by the accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi were received from The Registrar High Court of Judicature Chennai for the purpose of investigation. On the same day, the genuineness letter has been received from the Bharathidasan University through email which discloses that the certificate produced by the accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before this Hon’ble Court is not genuine.
5] It is submitted that, on 15-08-2022, the accused A1.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi was arrested and recorded the voluntary confession statement, in this he stated that he had received all the fake documents including the fake BL certificate from one Adv.Senthilkumar of Thirumangalam in order to grab the property of Mr.Pandurangan.
6] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the wide publicity given through the Tamil and English news paper regarding the arrest of the fake adcvocate accused Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi.
7] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the keys of the residence i.e., No.19-A, 11th Cross Street, Poombugar
Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099 (Which was locked by the accused Tmt.Ramya) was received from Tmt.Ramya and handed over to defacto complainant Tmt.Shanthi on 18.08.2022.
8] It is submitted that, on the orders of the Special Court for CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai, the said accused Tr.Babu @ Babu sanjeevi was taken on police custody from 25.08.2022 to 26.08.2022 and on interrogation, he confessed about the offences committed by him and along with his associates Tmt.Ramya and others. The same was recorded. The fake SSLC and 12th std certificates pertained to the accused Tr.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi were seized under the cover of Mahazar.
9] It is submitted that, as per order of the Hon’ble High court of Madras the V.6 Kolathur P S CSR.Nos.42, 43, 152, 242/2022 were received and the investigation proceedings clubbed with in CCB Cr.No162/2022.
10] It is submitted that, the accused Tr.Babu @BabuSanjeevi has was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda ” in Detention order No. 278/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.09.2022 .
11] It is submitted that, the Birth Certificate of Tmt.Ramya bearing S.No.41837, Birth Date 02.06.1992, issued Date 07.06.1992 which was produced by A2. Tmt.Ramya before the V-6 Kolathur Police Station has verified with Zonal Health Officer, Chennai Corporation, Zone-5 and found to be fake.
12] It is submitted that, the Legal Heir Certificate of Pandurangan Certificate No. TN-7202204271783 Dated 13.05.2022 which was filed by A1 S.Babu @ Babu Sanjeevi before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in his type set was verified with the Thasidlar, Ayanavaram, Chennai. In this the Thasildhar Ayanavaram replied that this Legal Heir Certificate has been issued on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant A2 Tmt.Ramya. Then one of the document i.e Death Certificate of one Nagarathinam (alleged and claimed as A2 Tmt.Ramya’s mother) was verified with Zonal Health Officer Zone-6, Chennai Corporation and found to be fake.
13] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to the Traffic Manager, Port Authority, Chennai-01 and obtained the copies of service book of the deceased G.Pandurangan in which he clearly mentioned that his wife R.Ambica is the only family member of him as on 22.05.2003.
14] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to The Sub Registrar, Sembiam and obtained the certified copy of the Will document bearing Doc No.89/2011/Bk1 dt.28.12.2011 which reflects that Dheeraj Maal is the only son of Tr.Pandurangan and Ambika.
15] It is submitted that, on 17.10.2022 both accused Tmt.Ramya, w/o.Ponnusamy and A3.Tr.Ponnusamy, s/o.Kuppan were enquired U/s.41A Cr.PC.
16] It is submitted that, the Police notice were issued to Tr.C.SriMuruga, TrK.Anjenayan, Tr.K.Sathish Kumar and on they were enquired their statements were recorded.
17] It is submitted that, the letter was sent to the Joint Director, State Board of School Examination regarding the genuineness of the secondary school mark list Reg No.417055/April 1983 and +2 mark list Reg No.629413/April 1985 of accused Tr.S.Babu and reply received, in which it is visible in crystal clear the Reg No.417055/April 1983 belongs to one Tmt.M.kanagamani Ammal and another Reg No. 629413/April 1985 belongs to one Tr.K.Alagendran.
18] It is submitted that, the letter was issued to the Head Master, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Koradachery and reply was received. It is stated that Tr.S.Babu was not studied in that school during the educational year 1982-1983, 1984-1985. Moreover, by that years the school name is Govt HSS KORADACHERI, where as the certificated printed with the school name GOVT BOYS HR SEC SCHOOL KORADACHERY.
19] It is submitted that, the witnesses Tr.G.Arivarasan, Tr.R.Manigandan, Tr.Rajan, Tr.G.Murugan, Tr.K.Selvakumar, Dr.Kumar,
Tr.S.Senthilkumar, Tr.C.Selvaraj, Tmt.Abarna, Tmt.Kayalvizhi, Tr.A.Sherbin Arul, Tmt.Chitra, Tr.Kumaradevan, Tr.Karthikeyan and Inspector Tr.Aju Kumar were examined and their statements are recorded and investigation is yet to be
completed.” (emphasis supplied)
19 From the aforesaid status report, the belowmentioned facts come to
light:
i. The Law Degree certificated produced by Babu is fake;
ii. The death certificate of Nagarathinam produced by Ramya to show that she was born to the Pandurangan – Nagarathinam couple is fake;
iii. In the service register of Pandurangan maintained by the Chennai Port Trust, only Ambika has been shown as the family member;
iv. The X Standard and XII Standard certificates produced by Babu do not pertain to him but to Kanagamani Ammal and Alagendran, respectively.
20 In the light of the clinching facts discernible from the status report, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the trio comprising Babu, Ramya and Sri Muruga have acted in tandem and left no stone unturned to project as if they are good Samaritans and on the other hand, they have not produced any shred of evidence to disprove the deed dated 10.02.2006, in and by which, Dheeraj was given in adoption to the Durairaj – Shanthi couple. This Court could infer from the turn of events that Babu had made an attempt to exclude Shanthi, who was also appointed as an executor of the will along with himself and to take exclusive custody of the physically-challenged boy with the oblique motive of grabbing the properties left by his father Pandurangan.
21 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to keep this habeas corpus petition pending any more and hence, proceeds to issue the following slew of directions and observation:
i. As regards the future upkeep of Dheeraj and maintenance of properties devolving on him, we appoint Mr. M.K. Kabir, Senior Advocate and Mrs.Chitra Narayanan, Advocate, as guardians, who have agreed to extend their services pro bono and they are requested to monitor the upkeep of Dheeraj by Shanthi and also admit him in a school, bearing in mind, his disability factor.
ii. Shanthi shall act as per the adoption deed executed by Pandurangan and continue to be the custodian of Dheeraj by receiving the rental income from nine properties, which, we were told by her, works out to Rs.35,000/- per month and shall not alienate any of the properties sans Court’s permission.
iii Shanthi shall maintain an account of income and expenditure and submit the same to this Court once in six months and in case, Shanthi is required to expend any amount for Dheeraj exceeding Rs.25,000/-, she shall go ahead only after getting prior permission from this Court.
iv A copy of this order shall be marked to the Inspector General of Registration, who, in turn, shall forward a copy of the same to the Sub Registrars concerned within whose jurisdiction, the Guduvanchery, Thiruvallur and Kolathur properties of Dheeraj are situated, so that no alienation is made by any land shark.
v The State Bar Council shall comply with the direction issued by this
Bench in paragraph 5 of the order dated 10.11.2023 in letter and spirit sans delay.
vi The case in CCB, Vepery Cr.No.162 of 2022 shall be continued to be investigated and brought to its logical conclusion at the earliest and a final report be filed before the jurisdictional Court.
vii The second respondent police shall afford adequate protection to
Shanthi and Dheeraj.
viii Needless it is to state that in case, Dheeraj wants to dispose of any of the properties left by his father Pandurangan, it can be done in the manner known to law, for which , Mr. M.K. Kabir and Mrs. Chitra Narayanan, Court appointed guardians, are requested to render their assistance.
22 While issuing the aforesaid directions and observation, this Court hastens to add that this Court is not oblivious of the scope of this habeas corpus petition and that the aforesaid directions are issued only in order to protect the interests of Dheeraj, given the peculiar facts obtaining in this case.
23 Before parting, this Court places on record, the sincere efforts of
Mr.C.K.Satchithanandam, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai, in unearthing the truth and bringing to light the connivance of the trio so far in their greedy attempt to grab the properties of the poor Dheeraj.
This habeas corpus petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(S.V.N., J.) (A.D.J.C., J.) 16.11.2023
cad
To:
1 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan
32 (148), Flat No.7F9, VII Floor
Bhaasyaam Plutus Residence
Lattice Bridge Road
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041
2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Bharathidasan
New No.22 (Old No.L-45), II Main Road
Kamaraj Nagar (West)
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041
3 The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery
Chennai 600 007
4 The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Forgery Investigation Wing
Central Crime Branch
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
5 The Inspector of Police V-6, Kolathur Police Station
Kolathur, Chennai 600 099
6 Mr. M.K. Kabir
Senior Advocate
No.80, Law Chambers
High Court Campus
Chennai 600 104
7 Mrs. Chitra Narayanan Advocate
4-B, Amara Ananya
New Beach Road
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041 (Mobile No.90940 31934)
8 The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road
Chennai
9 The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
N.S.C. Bose Road
Chennai 600 104
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. and
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
cad H.C.P. No.728 of 2022
16.11.2023
on record, the sincere efforts of
Mr.C.K.Satchithanandam, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai, in unearthing the truth and bringing to light the connivance of the trio so far in their greedy attempt to grab the properties of the poor Dheeraj.
This habeas corpus petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(S.V.N., J.) (A.D.J.C., J.) 16.11.2023
cad
To:
1 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan
32 (148), Flat No.7F9, VII Floor
Bhaasyaam Plutus Residence
Lattice Bridge Road
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041
2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Bharathidasan
New No.22 (Old No.L-45), II Main Road
Kamaraj Nagar (West)
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041
3 The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery
Chennai 600 007
4 The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Forgery Investigation Wing
Central Crime Branch
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
5 The Inspector of Police V-6, Kolathur Police Station
Kolathur, Chennai 600 099
6 Mr. M.K. Kabir
Senior Advocate
No.80, Law Chambers
High Court Campus
Chennai 600 104
7 Mrs. Chitra Narayanan Advocate
4-B, Amara Ananya
New Beach Road
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai 600 041 (Mobile No.90940 31934)
8 The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road
Chennai
9 The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
N.S.C. Bose Road
Chennai 600 104
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. and
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
cad H.C.P. No.728 of 2022
16.11.2023
