IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 264 of 2011(S) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DHANYA.V., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.VALSALA, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 011. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690 101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORNADU POLICE STATION, NOORNADU, PIN-690 504. 4. ASHANATH, AGED 35 YEARS, KOIKKAL HOUSE, PATTOOR.P.O., NOORNADU, MAVELIKKARA-690 529. 5. VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, -DO- 6. OMANA, AGED 51 YEARS, -DO- THIRUVALLA-689 110. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.264 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner's husband and 4th respondent are the children of respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner alleges that her husband Sreenath is legally detained by respondents 4 to 6. A counter affidavit is sworn to by the 5th respondent on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 stating that Sreenath is not with them and that they came to know that Sreenath is missing only when the police enquired about him on the complaint of the petitioner. Following the earlier orders, the learned Government Pleader submits that on the basis of investigation, the 4th respondent, who is working as an Army Nurse at Avadi in Chennai, is to be questioned. As of now, they also need to question a friend of the 4th respondent. 2. With such inputs coming from the police, we are satisfied that there is no laxity as of now in the investigation W.P.(Crl).No.264/2011 2 process. We therefore direct the police to vigorously pursue the investigation and the 2nd respondent will personally control the investigation. We further direct that if the petitioner has any grievance with the passage of time as to laxity or misdirection in the investigation, it is open for her to move the 1st respondent who is the superior police officer as also to move the Jurisdictional Magistrate in view of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309]. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. (sd/-) (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (sd/-) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge