IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 385 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RANCY, D/O.T.J.PETER, AGED 42 YEARS, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MANNAMCHERRY P.O., WARD NO.15, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her father, an aged person (about 78 years). He was missing from 06.05.2010. The alleged detenu was residing along with the said brother of the petitioner. Her mother was also residing with the brother and the alleged detenu. About the disappearance/missing of the alleged detenu, a complaint was lodged by the brother of the petitioner and a crime No.637 of 2010 was registered on 01.07.2010. The alleged detenu was not traced by the police and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 28.09.2010. The brother of the petitioner was not specifically arrayed as a party, but the sum and substance of the allegation/apprehension in the petition was that the alleged detenu was being detained somewhere by or at the instance of the brother of the petitioner. W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 2 2. This petition was filed on 28.09.2010. It was admitted on 29.09.2010. Directions were issued from time to time. This judgment must be read in continuation of all the earlier orders passed by this Court resting with the order dated 23.11.2010. 3. The learned Government Pleader asserted before Court that there is no element of confinement or detention to justify the attempt to persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The learned Government Pleader submitted that this is simply a case of man missing. The police are leaving no stone unturned to trace the alleged detenu. The attempt has not been successful. The Investigating Officers are taking all necessary steps. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that a perusal of the case diary would reveal that there are a lot of disputes among the children of the alleged detenu regarding properties. The alleged detenu was dissatisfied and perturbed over such disputes and his own situation in life. It is further stated that the investigation reveals that the alleged detenu was a short tempered and irritable person. He used to get involved in arguments and disputes with his children. Many are the instances when the alleged detenu went away from home and W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 3 took up employment at unknown places. He used to return later after some time. In fact, even in the F.I.R, there are indications to this effect. 5. We wanted the Investigating Officer to be present personally and to place the case diary before us. The case diary has been placed before us on 23.11.2010. We have gone through the case diary. We find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there is no semblance of an indication to suggest that the alleged detenu is under any illegal confinement or detention. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that this is in substance and virtually only a case of man missing with no elements of illegal detention or confinement involved. 6. No material whatsoever is placed before Court to indicate that there is any element of illegal confinement and detention in the disappearance/missing of the alleged detenu. In fact, the petitioner herself has not thought it fit to array her brother as one of the respondents in this petition. Inference is irresistible, in these circumstances, that it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 4 constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 7. This is not to say that the police need not continue the investigation. We expect the police to continue the investigation with all earnestness and attempt to trace the alleged detenu, ie. the missing person, the father of the petitioner. Every attempt must be made to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the investigation, needless to say, the petitioner's option to approach the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 5 W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 6 R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. The learned Government Pleader submits that the investigation is in progress. Despite active efforts made by the police to trace the alleged detenu, ie. the father of the petitioner, he has not been traced so far. The learned Government Pleader prays for time for the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation. 2. Request is accepted. Further time is granted. 3. Call on 22.11.2010. If the alleged detenu is not traced by then, the Investigating Officer shall file a detailed statement of the steps taken and the progress made. The Investigating Officer shall, on that day, appear before Court along with the case diary. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) W.P(Crl) No.385 of 2010 7 (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/