Smt. Rukia vs The Government of Karnataka and Others

Ajit J Gunjal

The husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner has been missing since November, 2011. ft appears, missing complaint was initially lodged on 29-il-2011 by the wife; another complaint was lodged on 3-12-2011 by the wife and again, another complaint was lodged on 19-12-2011. Since no action was taken, another complaint was lodged on 16-1-2012 with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, South Sub Division. The present writ petitions are filed seeking for a mandamus to entrust the investigation to a different agency, more so, having regard to the fact that the third respondent, according to the petitioners, is conniving with the accused. Specific prayer is made by the petitioner that investigation shall be entrusted to CBI or an impartial independent agency or special investigation team. On notice, the respondent-State has filed objections contending that on the complaint lodged by the petitioners, complaint was registered in Crime No. 2/ 2012 of Ulla? Police station and it reveals that fourth respondent had not worked as a Supervisor in the shop of the missing person and hence, according to the Stale, the question of gaining control over the business of missing person does not arise. Be that as it may, during the investigation of the said crime, the petitioners were not able to point out any proof or clue to substantiate the victimisation and there is no evidence forthcoming regarding respondents-4 to 7 forcefully taking the vehicle and gold jewels belonging to the petitioners. Indeed, the respondents-1 to 3 have been investigating into the matter and publications have been taken out in local newspapers. The respondents-1 to 3 have also made available the copies of the notifications which were taken out in various publications regarding missing of the first petitioner''s husband and sort of the second petitioner. The copies of the extracts are made available along with the statement of objection:. I am of the view that the third respondent is making enough efforts to trace the missing person.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third respondent is not taking enough interest in the investigation. I am of the view that in the circumstances, second respondent-Superintendent of Police, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada shall also monitor the investigation.

Another grievance of the petitioners is that their statements are not recorded and the diary maintained by the missing person is not taken into consideration. If it is so, the investigating agency shall record the statement of the complainants i.e., the petitioners and shall seize all the material which would enable them to investigate the matter with greater vigor.

With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

Smt. Nagashree, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance for R-1 to 3 in six weeks.