G. Babu vs The Superintendent of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police, Manaf and Aattabi

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his minor daughter Abitha, aged above 17 years (date of birth - 11.05.1993). She was a student of the Plus Two course. She has not written the examination of the Plus Two Course. She was found missing from 17.04.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his minor daughter Abitha was being illegally detained and confined by the 3rd respondent, a person aged about 27 years and the 4th respondent, his mother.

This petition was filed on 26.04.2010. It was admitted by another Bench on 27.04.2010. The Benches which dealt with the matter have issued directions from time to time. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by the Court resting with the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by us. On that day, the case was posted to 19.08.2010 with peremptory directions to the Director General of Police to make every effort to trace the alleged detenue. The case stood posted to 19.08.2010. This case was directed to be called today on the Bench consequent to the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the alleged detenue has been traced and shall be produced before this Court today.

Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his wife are present. The petitioner is represented by his counsel. The alleged detenue has been brought to Court by the police. The 3rd respondent has not entered appearance so far. The 4th respondent, his mother, was present before Court on 04.05.2010. She had submitted that her son, the 3rd respondent, has also not been traced. According to her, she was not aware of the whereabouts of her son, the 3rd respondent, and the alleged detenue.

We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner, her father, and her mother. The alleged detenue is still a minor. She will attain the age of majority - 18 years, only on 11.05.2011. The alleged detenue has to be normally accommodated only with her parents till she attains majority.

But it is not necessary for this Court to pass any contested order. The alleged detenue states before us that she shall today return along with her parents from Court. Her parents agree to take her to their residence from Court. It is agreed by the alleged detenue and her parents that the alleged detenue can be given in marriage to the 3rd respondent after she attains majority on 11.05.2011. The mother of the alleged detenue states before us that the 3rd respondent had spoken to her over the telephone and it was agreed that the 3rd respondent will marry the alleged detenue after she attains the age of 18 years.

We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition can be closed now with appropriate directions as agreed by the alleged detenue and the petitioner. It is not necessary to wait for the appearance of the 3rd respondent. To our pointed question, it is stated that there is no apprehension that there has been any conception by the alleged detenue in her relationship with the 3rd respondent.

In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is allowed;

b) The alleged detenue Abitha, a minor girl, aged 17 years (date of birth - 11.05.1993), is permitted to leave the Court along with her parents, the petitioner and his wife, as agreed by all of them.

ORDER

The petitioner has come to this Court with the grievance that his minor daughter Abitha, aged 17 years, has been missing from 17.04.2010. It is his apprehension that the alleged detenue is being detained by the 3rd respondent in collusion with the 4th respondent. A crime has been registered. On the grievance that no serious efforts are being made to trace the alleged detenue, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus on 26.04.2010. The matter was admitted and directions were issued from time to time.

The 4th respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The counsel submits that the 4th respondent is equally aggrieved about the disappearance/missing of the 3rd respondent. She had also raised a complaint before the police about the disappearance of the 3rd respondent.

The 2nd respondent appears in person. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that though all efforts have been made to trace the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent, the police have not achieved success so far. At present the investigation is being conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur. The learned Government Pleader prays that further time may be granted to the Investigators to complete the investigation and trace the alleged detenue.

The case diary has been made available to the learned Government Pleader. We have perused the report of the Investigating Officer to the Government Pleader. To say the least, we are not satisfied that a proper investigation has been conducted by the police to trace the alleged detenue.

The police must compassionately appreciate the plight of the petitioner, whose minor daughter is missing and is not traceable from 17.04.2010. We are left with the feeling that no serious efforts are made by the police. We deem it necessary, in these circumstances, to direct the 1st respondent, the Superintendent of Police, to personally monitor and supervise the investigation and ensure that the alleged detenue is traced and dealt with in accordance with law at the earliest.

Call this petition again on 14.06.2010. By that date if the alleged detenue is not traced, the 1st respondent shall file a statement explaining the steps taken and the results achieved. We need only reiterate that we expect the 1st respondent to produce tangible results by that date.

Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Government Pleader for immediate communication to the 1st respondent.