V. Muthukumar vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is son of one Velayutham. He is a resident of Mazhavarayanpatti, Vamban Post, Alangudi Taluk,

Pudukkottai District. He preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent on 30.09.2007 stating that he was previously working as a coolie in a

Coffee Estate in Kudagu District, Karnataka State, that he worked there for the past three years and that thereafter came back to his native place

and residing there. He has further stated in the complaint that on 25.05.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. respondents 3 to 6 came to Keezhathur where his

father was living and represented him that his son (the petitioner) was now in the estate in Karnataka State and asked him to come over there for

work, convinced him and took him to Karnataka State, that when he came to the above said Keezhathur village he learnt that his father was taken

away by respondents 3 to 6, that he smelt rat they kept his father as a bonded labourer, that he also came to know that his father is no more and

that the police may take steps to trace the whereabouts of his father.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a very poor man and the action on the part of respondents 3 to 6 has put

him in a very pathetic condition and therefore the Court may come to his rescue to trace his father.

It appears that only for the purpose of employment, the father of the petitioner had gone to Karnataka State. There might be some request on

the part of respondents 3 to 6. But, it could not be understood that the father of the petitioner was kidnapped or was employed in the Estate as a

bonded labourer.

Considering the circumstances in this case, there is no scope to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by filing habeas corpus petition.

However, an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to move the

District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate concerned for necessary relief. Section 97 of Cr.P.C. goes thus.

earch for persons wrongfully confined.--If any District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to

believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search warrant, and the

person to whom such warrant is directed may search for the person so confined; and such search shall be made in accordance therewith, and the

person, if found, shall be immediately taken before a Magistrate, who shall make such order as in the circumstances of the case seems proper.

If the person aggrieved moves before the Judicial Magistrate and if he believes that any person is confined under any circumstance, which would

amount to an offence, the said Judicial Magistrate has got every power to issue search warrant and he may direct the authorities to produce the

person before him and the said Magistrate may pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties.

In this case, it is more appropriate for the petitioner to move the Judicial Magistrate concerned for necessary relief and the petitioner is directed

to invoke the provisions contained in Section 97 of the Code, as afore stated.

With the above observation, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.