IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 521 of 2009(S)
1. S.BABU, S/O.SEKHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPT. OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. BINDU, BINDU NIVAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
IA.No.3226 of 2010
&
WP(Crl.).No.521 of 2009-S.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The petitioner’s son Dileep is allegedly missing since
11.9.2009. The petitioner’s version is that he is under the
illegal detention of one Nisha, who is not a party to this writ
petition. He would, however, say that Nisha is under the
cover of the 6th respondent Bindu. This writ petition is filed
seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the body
of Dileep. However, when notice issued to Bindu is
returned with the endorsement ‘not known’, the petitioner
filed the above IA with a request to delete the name of the
6th respondent Bindu from the party array. If such an order
IA.No.3226/10 & WP(Crl.).No.521/09.
-: 2 :-
is issued, the writ petition would be essentially infructuous
because, the petitioner has no case that Dileep has been
detained by the police or State of Kerala, who alone would
remain as parties to this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that as per the statement of police officers, some money
transactions were being passed through Nisha, who is
under the coverage of the 6th respondent Bindu. It appears
from the pleadings that certain warrants were issued by the
CRPF against Dileep since he is an absconder. Since it is
stated that an arrest warrant has been issued from the
Battalion of CRPF 177, Barramulla District, Jammu &
Kashmir, it may be the case where Dileep is making himself
search in the light of that arrest warrant. Either way, the
facts do not generate any need for this Court to further
probe into the matter.
3. Hence rejecting IA.No.3226/2010, it is ordered
IA.No.3226/10 & WP(Crl.).No.521/09.
-: 3 :-
that respondents 1 and 2 will do the needful to have an
effective investigation in the matter, in accordance with
law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
(JUDGE)
P.S.GOPINATHAN
(JUDGE)
Kvs/-