IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 172 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABHILASH T.M., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.P.C.MOHANAN, SRAYIL HOUSE, MANARKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686019. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-691571. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 502. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARKAD POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686019. 5. T.C.PRASAD, THADATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM-686026. 6. T.C.GOPINATHAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686502. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) No. 172 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his father P.C.Mohanan and to take appropriate action on the petition submitted by the petitioner. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner's father is a businessman who is operating private buses and one of the vehicles was in the name of the 5th respondent. The father of the petitioner is found missing from 19.3.2011 onwards. To the knowledge of the petitioner, there was some financial dispute between the father of the petitioner and the 5th respondent who was involved in the business of the father of the petitioner. Respondents 5 and 6 are highly influential persons. On 19.3.2011 when the father of the petitioner was found missing he immediately submitted a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police. On the subsequent conduct of respondents 5 and 6 the petitioner believes that they have got active involvement in the missing of the father of the petitioner. Since respondents 5 and 6 are influential persons, police is not taking any action. WPCR 172/2011 -2- 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 and 6 wherein it is stated as under: “4. It is submitted that the petitioner herein and his father Mohan, who now is missing, were not in good terms and it is understood that they were not in talking terms even for the last five years. It seems that Sri.Mohanan had three stage carriage services and out of that one was purchased in my name and the other in the name of the 6th respondent. The vehicle that was purchased in my name was sold by Mohanan and transferred the permit and the vehicle and that amount has been forcibly taken from Mohanan by the petitioner herein. Likewise, Sri.Mohanan had Pineapple cultivation at Kanjiramattom as well as at Kozhikode and he obtained very huge amounts from that and those amounts also was taken from Mohanan by the petitioner. Similarly, Mohanan had around 12 ½ cents of property along with an old house therein near Kottayam Medical College on the side of the river, which also was sold under pressure of the petitioner and that amount also has been taken by the petitioner and with all these money, it seems, the petitioner has purchased properties and house at the place known was Vellur. 5. Since, the sale of the vehicle and its permits which stood in the name of this respondent, the remaining two buses were to be replaced since those vehicles seems to have completed 15 years on the permitted route, Mohanan was in search of money for that purpose and even contacted the petitioner. It seems, the petitioner refused to return the money. It also seems that Sri.Mohanan thereafter, has borrowed money from several persons and it seems that those persons were pressing Mohanan for returning the amounts to them and WPCR 172/2011 -3- those two vehicles also seems to be garaged without being operated with. All these facts were willfully suppressed by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner and his family are not in that good terms with these respondents, since we requested to the petitioner, to give back some money to Sri.Mohanan, so that he can settle a part of his financial liabilities.” It is also stated that there was financial dispute with Mohanan and the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that respondent was involved in the business of the father of the petitioner. 4. There is reply no affidavit filed. Learned Government Pleader would also submit that enquiry is conducted and a letter is seized which would in fact show that the father of the petitioner has voluntarily left because of financial difficulties. In such circumstance, we see no reason to keep this matter pending. Necessarily investigation will go on. Subject to the same, the Writ Petition (Criminal) is closed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS