IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 261 of 2011(S) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHIBU KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, EDATHARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, NJANDOORKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL)-695001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VARKALA CIRCLE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695312. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695312. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(CRL). NO. 261/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.532/2011 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(Crl.).No.261 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. We take on record the statement dated 11.7.2011 submitted by R.Ashok kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station. He has given vivid details as to the course of investigation and the action taken on the complaint that the petitioner's sister is missing. We are satisfied that the pendency of this writ petition and bringing up further details of the investigation on record here would not be in the best interest of the effort of the police to trace out the missing person. Having recorded the statement of the police officer, we are satisfied that the police is making earnest efforts to push forward the investigation. Recording this, we dispose of this writ petition directing that respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that the investigation is vigorously pursued. We also WPCR.261/11 2 clarify that if the petitioner has any further complaint about any laxity in the investigation, he may bring his such apprehension to the notice of the first respondent or even invoke the authority of the jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2007 (13) SCALE 693]. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.14/7.