IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 134 of 2007(S)
1. AJU VIJAYAMOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 23
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :08/12/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007-C
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the various
orders passed by this Court in the matter resting with the last
order passed by us on 1/11/10.
2. The petitioner is the son of the alleged detenue – one
`Jayakumari’, aged about 52 years at the time of her alleged
disappearance on 12/12/06. Complaint was lodged; but the
alleged detenue was not traced. The crime was registered
under the caption `person missing’; but the investigation did not
succeed in tracing of the missing woman. Jayakumari, the said
missing person, could not be traced by the police and it is, in
these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court on
29/5/07 with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 2 :-
directing the police to produce her before this Court. This
petition was admitted. Directions were issued from time to
time. Specific directions were issued to the highest police
officials in the State to monitor the investigation. The Additional
Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum, has been
monitoring the investigation for a long period of time. Still the
police have not been able to achieve success. The matter stood
posted to 1/12/10 with directions to the Additional D.G.P. who is
monitoring the investigation to file a detailed statement.
3. A detailed statement dated 29/11/10 has been filed by
Sri. Vinson M. Paul, IPS., Additional Director General of Police
(Crimes), Trivandrum. In such report, the Additional D.G.P.
(Crimes) has given details of the various steps that have been
taken by the police at different levels in the investigation of this
crime i.e., Crime No.381/06 under the caption `person missing’
of the Chirayinkil Police Station. It was re-numbered as CBCID
Crime No.131/CR/Tvm/09.
4. To cut a long story short, the Additional D.G.P. reports
that investigation had revealed that on 12/12/06 the alleged
detenue had left her house under circumstances which indicate
that she deliberately wanted to make herself scarce. It is the
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 3 :-
impression gathered by the police by the long investigation that
the alleged detenue/missing person Jayakumari was used to a life
of enviable luxury. She was heavily indebted to persons. She
was under great pressure from her creditors. One of the
creditors had allegedly committed suicide a few days prior to her
alleged disappearance on 12/12/06. Unable to cope with the
pressure from her creditors, the police now conclude that the
alleged detenue must have made herself scarce and is
deliberately absconding. All efforts by the police have not
succeeded in tracing the alleged detenue.
5. It may not be inapposite in this context to note that the
police themselves have concluded that one Anilkumar, the driver
of the alleged detenue, appears to be having information about
the circumstances under which the alleged detenue is missing;
but he is not co-operating with the police. He has been
interrogated closely; but no positive results have been achieved.
He was subjected to polygraph test. According to the police
that test indicated that he is deceptively suppressing information
from the Investigators. He was further questioned; but without
any positive result. The police wanted the said witness
Anilkumar to be subjected to Narco analysis; but he has refused
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 4 :-
to co-operate and in the light of the decision of the Supreme
Court the police have not been able to insist that he must
undergo Narco analysis. The Additional D.G.P. reports that the
said Anilkumar is kept under close watch. Police are continuing
the investigation. They expect positive results to be achieved.
The said Anilkumar is under close monitoring and it is the
wish/hope of the police that the mystery of disappearance of the
alleged detenue can be resolved in the near future, if not
immediately.
6. However, it is asserted by the Additional D.G.P.(Crimes)
in his statement and it is reiterated by the learned Government
Pleader that in any event there is absolutely nothing to even
remotely suggest that the missing person Jayakumari is under
any illegal detention or confinement of any person. The learned
Government Pleader points out that even the petitioner does not
have a specific case that the missing person, his mother, is
under the illegal confinement or detention of any one. The
learned Government Pleader, in these circumstances, submits
that the proceedings may now be closed. The police shall,
however, make every endeavour to trace the alleged detenue and
complete the investigation in the crime. For the reason that
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 5 :-
there is absolutely no indications to suggest that the powers
under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue of a writ of habeas
corpus can or need be invoked in this case, this proceeding may
now be closed and the petition may be dismissed, submits the
learned Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to place
any indications before Court to make a choice between the
theory of absconding by the alleged detenue and her alleged
detention or confinement. In fact, the petitioner also has not
chosen to make any specific assertion of illegal detention or
confinement of the alleged detenue.
8. We do, in these circumstances, conclude that there are
no circumstances whatsoever to justify the invocation of the
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas
corpus. This petition, in these circumstances, deserves only to
be dismissed.
9. This is not to say that the police need not continue the
investigation. Every effort must be made by the police to ensure
that the missing person is traced. We have no hesitation to
state that the said driver Anilkumar will have to be subjected to
close scrutiny and monitoring and will have to be questioned
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 6 :-
afresh again notwithstanding the earlier efforts made to question
him. The police having satisfied themselves that he is not
revealing the whole truth, it appears to us that it is clear now
where the police have to concentrate the investigation. The
possibility of reaching or having access to the missing person
through that driver of hers will have to be actively pursued by
the police.
10. If the investigation does not proceed on proper lines,
needless to say, the option of the petitioner to approach the
courts under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. shall
remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition.
11. With the above observations this writ petition is, in
these circumstances, dismissed.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/ //true copy
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 7 :-