AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J
The petitioner is concerned with her husband, who is said to be missing from Uduppi in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner alleges in the writ
petition that her husband is in the illegal custody of his employer, the 3rd respondent, and one Shinto Thomas, who has not been impleaded in the writ
petition.
The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed Counter Affidavit refuting the contention of the petitioner that it was on his compulsion that her husband
went to Uduppi. He admits that the husband of the petitioner was employed with him in his Estate, but he was found missing on the night of
17.05.2020. One Santhosh, who is the friend of the son of the petitioner, was informed of the same and he had filed a complaint before the Karkkala
Rural Police Station, registered as Crime No.46 of 2020. The 3rd respondent is permanently residing at Aluva and he asserts that he has absolutely no
knowledge of the whereabouts of the petitioner's husband. He also denies the contention of the petitioner that he has kept him in illegal custody.
We see from the records that the Sub Inspector of Police, Karkkala Rural Police Station has filed detailed reports regarding the investigation of the
case. We see that the Karnataka Police is carrying out an investigation and the husband of the petitioner has not yet been traced. However, the
reports of the Sub Inspector of Police Karkkala Rural Police Station does not reveal any illegal detention of the petitioner's husband. There is also no
allegation against the 3rd respondent or his employees in the Estate at Uduppi.
We are convinced that the case is one of man-missing and there is no evidence as to the petitioner's husband having been illegally detained. In such
circumstances, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued. We close the writ petition.