IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 19 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMANATHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. SANKUNNI, THUPRATH HOUSE, POVATHISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA POST, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHUR. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. UDAYAN, S/O. MAKKUNNI, NADUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KORUMBISSERY, MANAVALASSERY POST, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. 5. RAMESH E.R., MAHENDRA FINANCE, IRINJALAKUDA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. ADDL.R6.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE, CHENNAI. ADDL.R7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ERNAKULAM ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 6/10/2008 IN IA.NO.9801/08. ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R4 SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R5 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R6-7 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & P. Bhavadasan JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P (Crl.) 19 of 2008-S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. Judgment Basheer, J: Petitioner is the father of one Smt.Hema who has been missing from her matrimonial home since January 4, 2008. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.4 who is the younger brother of his son-in- law is responsible for the disappearance of his daughter. He has a further case that respondent No.5 and some goondas had also helped respondent No.4 in this operation. 2. It is on record that the local Police had initially conducted investigation in Crime No.9/2008 registered by Irinjalakuda Police under the caption “Man Missing”. Thereafter the Crime Detachment was put in charge of the investigation. Still later, this Court had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation. Accordingly the CBI has been in charge of the investigation. 3. When this petition came up for consideration on February 4, 2009 we directed the Officer in charge of the investigation in the CBI to appear before this Court and produce the case diary before us. The Officer Mr.Loverson Kuruvila, Inspector of Police, SPE.CBI.SCB., Chennai had appeared before us with the case file. 4. Having spoken to the Officer and having perused the case file, we were prima facie satisfied that the investigating agency has been doing a satisfactory job. The Officer was directed to file status report in the matter after 4 weeks. WP (Crl.)19/2008. 2 5. Thereafter the Officer has filed two reports. In his report dated March 19, 2009, the officer has stated thus: “That, it is most respectfully submitted that we have pursued all available clues so far available to us and despite all sincere efforts we are not able to find out the missing persons. However, no evidence to suggest that Hema was abducted and illegally detained in custody against her will has come on record so far in the enquiry. On the other hand the evidence is suggestive of an elopement as submitted earlier.” 6. Mr.T.M.Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends before us that the investigation conducted so far by the CBI is far from satisfactory. He would urge us to reject the reports submitted by the Officer and hand over the investigation to another agency. 7. We are unable to agree. Since there is no material before us not even to suggest that the investigation conducted by the CBI so far in this case has been inept or inefficient, we are not in a position to accept the plea made by the petitioner to direct a further investigation and that too by another Officer or agency. However, we hasten to add that it will always be open to the petitioner to pursue the further remedies, if any, available to him in the matter. The closure of this writ petition shall not stand in the way WP (Crl.)19/2008. 3 of the petitioner in pursuing those remedies. But, for the time being, we do not see any purpose to continue with this writ petition. Therefore the Writ Petition is closed. Petitioner shall be entitled to get certified copies of the two status reports filed by the Officer of the CBI, if an application is made in this regard. A.K. Basheer Judge P. Bhavadasan Judge an.