Sekar v. The Home Secretary,

ORDER This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for his illegal arrest and detention.

¶2Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶3The petitioner got married to one Dhakshayini and out of the wedlock, two children were born to them. While being so, due to misunderstanding, they got separated. Thereafter, the petitioner and minor children filed a petition for maintenance in MC No.28 of 1993, which was allowed by order dated 15.07.1996 thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- for maintenance. Subsequently, the petitioner's wife filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2008 seeking enhancement of maintenance and the same was allowed, thereby enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs.1,250/- per month. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said order after

15.04.2020. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement, wherein the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as one-time settlement. According to the petitioner, due to Covid-19 pandemic circumstances, he could not able to appear before the Trial Court and there was arrears of maintenance. Hence, the wife of the petitioner filed a petition claiming arrears of maintenance. In the said proceedings, the petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court and was set exparte. Consequently, the Trial Page3 of 5 Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. In order to execute the said warrant, the second respondent secured the petitioner and produced him before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the amount due, the Non-Bailable Warrant was recalled and he was released. Now, the petitioner come forward with the present writ petition claiming compensation for his alleged illegal arrest by the second respondent.

¶4A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner was secured only pursuant to the warrant issued by the Trial Court and was produced before the Trial Court. Insofar as the use of the prescribed forms is concerned, the second respondent has merely acted upon the warrant and the forms issued by the Trial Court while executing the same. Therefore, the second respondent cannot be said to have committed any illegality in securing the petitioner in execution of the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him.

¶5In view of the above, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking compensation cannot be considered. Thus, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands dismissed. No costs. 07-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order LPP Page4 of 5 To

1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pernambut Police Station, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. Page5 of 5 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. LPP 07-07-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Sekar ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pernambut Police Station, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writs or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the petitioner for the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner made by the 2nd respondent contrary to law and the provisions of BNSS and pass such further other orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case thus render justice. For Petitioner: Mr.V.M.Gramakkannan For Respondents: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) Page2 of 5