Karnataka High Court
Sri Sendil Kumar V vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2012
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.185/2012
BETWEEN
Sri. Sendil Kumar V.,
S/o. Sri.A.Vijayakumar
Aged about 25 years
Occupation: Driver
Residing at "Anthony Buildings
Door No.144/1, 4th Cross
Subhashnagar, T.C.Palya Cross
Vigonagar Post
Bangalore - 560 049. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.G.Jairaj, Adv.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Department of Home Affairs
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore - 560 001
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. Superintendent of Police
Bangalore Rural District
Bangalore.
3. Station House Officer
Avalahalli Police Station
2
Hoskote Taluk
Bangalore East Taluk
Bangalore Rural District. ... Respondents
(By Sri.H.S.Chandramouli, SPP)
This WPHC is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue directions to
the respondents in the nature of writ of habeas corpus
to search, trace and produce the victim before this
Hon'ble Court to deal same accordance of law.
This WPHC coming on for orders this day,
D.V.Shylendra Kumar, J., made the following:-
ORDER
Writ jurisdiction of the High Court particularly, for issue of a writ of habeas corpus on the premise that some person, is in the illegal custody of any known person and it is necessarily to secure the freedom of such illegally detained person, is being misused and abused by persons, who have found that filing a complaint by the persons either before the police for some action after having filed a missing complaint in respect of the missing person, yielding no result pursuant to the complaint, this writ petition is also one presented under such circumstances. 3
2. This writ petition is by a person, in respect of his father, who according to the petition averment is said to have been missing ever since 8.7.2011 and it is averred in the petition that he has gone out of home and did not return.
3. The writ petitioner and other relatives of the missing person have waited for more than a week and much more. It appears that the missing complaint has been filed before the Station House Officer, Avalahalli Police Station, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District on 1.8.2011.
4. The present writ petition (HC) is filed before this Court on 21st September, 2012 more than one year after the complaint, on the premise that the police are still unable to trace the missing person and that they are not performing their duties properly, not gathering information about the victim and apprising the petitioner and they have failed in their duties; that the writ petitioner is not receiving commensurate response 4 from the police and on the other hand, alleging high handedness on the part of the respondents - State and the Superintendent of Police, has presented this petition before this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus in respect of the missing person.
5. This Court having directed issue of notice to the State, the learned State Public Prosecutor has taken notice. The matter had been adjourned to 24.9.2012 at the request of the learned S.P.P., and listed for further orders today before this Court.
6. Petitioner, Petitioner's mother, maternal-uncle and wife are present before the Court.
7. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that during the course of enquiry the police have come to know that the missing person was mentally unstable and he used to go out of the house and would return only after a couple of days and that missing person going out and not returning home is very common and nothing new 5 and further the enquiry report also reveals that missing person was receiving treatment at NIMHANS.
8. Mr.Chandra Mouli, learned S.P.P., submits that further investigation and follow up action by the police reveal that the missing person is not very happy with the treatment given to him as per the advice by the family members particularly, for keeping and treating him at NIMHANS and he being directed to be on medication and in this connection there seems to be difference of opinion between the missing person and the writ petitioner, particularly, the missing person suspecting that the family members are trying to victimize him by black magic etc.,
9. Though there is no information about this condition of the missing person in the petition, missing person's wife who is present before the Court, so also the petitioner have confirmed that the missing person had been taken to NIMHANS for treatment and on the other hand, seek for relief before the Court and that 6 they suspect a neighbour by name Bhuminadass, S/o. Raju to be the cause for the petitioner's father missing etc.,
10. On behalf of the respondent Mr.H.S.Chandra Mouli, learned S.P.P. submits that the police having learnt about the said person and though follow-up action has been taken in this regard, they did not find the missing person said to be in his custody and the statement of the person has also been recorded.
11. We find from the investigation report that the petitioner's father is not under the illegal custody of any known person, but the writ petitioner having suppressed the facts about the condition of the missing person, presented the petition as if everything was well in the house.
12. Be that as it may, we find that there is no occasion for issue of a writ of habeas corpus in the present situation and the petitioner has more abused the process of this Court as if he has made out a bonafide 7 and legitimate cause for seeking redressal. The very fact that the petition for issue of habeas corpus was presented one year after the person went missing itself, shows the lack of concern on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, we do not want to go more into that aspect. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition and direct the police to pursue investigation and if the person is traced to apprise the family members.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA