IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 531 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANDU, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KORAVAN, MANANGATTUVAYAL KURUMA COLONY, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANADU-673 591. BY ADVS.MR.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, TRIBAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANADU AT KALPETTA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANADU AT KALPETTA. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEENANGADI. 6. MALABAR BREAD COMPANY, NEAR P.M.HOSPITAL, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANADU DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.531/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- FIR NUMBERED 270/07 DTD. 3.11.09. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 15.11.07 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION. P3:- COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER CUTTING ABOUT DHARNA OF ACTION COMMITTEE. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(Crl.)No.531 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This is a case where petitioner's sister Panchali is stated to be missing some time in 2007. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Wayanad has placed a statement on record. Panchali has a son. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the father of that child is under an obligation to pay maintenance in terms of certain judicial orders. This writ petition is filed since, notwithstanding the registration of a crime as 270/2007 as a man-missing case by the Meenangadi Police Station on 3.11.2007, nothing worthwhile has come out. The statement discloses that WPCR531/09 -: 2 :- enquiries were being made and investigation proceeding in different angles, apparently without reaching any specific conclusion or obtaining any specific lead except to the fact that a lady who claims to be a fortune teller has told the police that Panchali had some affair with one Joy of Palakkad. The learned Government Pleader states, on instructions, that investigation shows that the said Joy is also a wandering person and is yet to be traced. 3.Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the firm view that no useful purpose will be served by retaining this writ petition here. However, the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted at the district-level by the District Magistrate, Wayanad in terms of Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 could act as a proper liaisoning authority with the appropriate tribal department and tribal missions and NGOs even if the allegations in the case in WPCR531/09 -: 3 :- hand may not amount to an atrocity for the purpose of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that cohesive approach by the police and the tribal department may yield result in tracing out Panchali or furthering the investigation in the proper direction. Therefore, we order this writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Wayanad to liaison with the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad and any other superior or subordinate officer in any wing of the Government as may be required to ensure that the complaint registered as Crime 270/2007 of the Meenangadi Police Station is taken to its logical end with all earnestness by following vigorous investigation as is required on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We also preserve the liberty of the petitioner, the brother of Panchali to move appropriate courts and other authorities, if it becomes necessary with the WPCR531/09 -: 4 :- passage of time, to complain that the investigation is not proceeding appropriately. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/1902