AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 is instituted by the petitioner, who is the mother of a minor girl by name Nandini @ Anju, complaining that her daughter was abducted by the 4th respondent with the assistance of the 5th respondent and that she is presently detained illegally by respondents 4 and 5. On considering this writ petition for admission, we on 27/11/2012 passed the following order;
Not admitted. Sri. N. Suresh learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Sri. Suresh will seek instructions from the concerned among R1 to R3 as to what action, if any, was taken on the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Issue notice by special messenger to respondents 4 and 5. Those respondents are directed to produce "Anju S. Mani @ Nandini before this court at 10.15 a.m. on Saturday, 1/12/2012. They will show cause as to why the above order for production shall not be made absolute.
The above order was followed by another order dated 1/12/2012 which reads as follows:
Despite service of notice and appearance through counsel, 5th respondent has not come to this court. 5th respondent is directed to present before this court at 10.15 a.m. on 5/12/2012. Post on 5/12/2012 on the top of the list.
Today, the petitioner Sunitha, her son a boy aged 12 years and the 5th respondent are present before us. we interacted with all of them. we heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as Sri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed learned Additional State Prosecutor.
Mr. Rasheed submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that the police is not taking serious action in the matter is not true. On the occurrence being reported initially, crime was registered u/s 57 of the K.P. Act and it was revealed in the investigation that the detenue is a minor girl. The offence u/s 363 of the IPC is also registered. Offence is presently being investigated by the 3rd respondent.
According to the 5th respondent, her brother, the 4th respondent, is not coming their house at all. His whereabouts are not known. But, she admitted that in all probability the petitioner''s daughter is in the company of her brother, she told us that the petitioner''s daughter and her brother stayed in the petitioner''s house. The above allegation of the 5th respondent was stoutly denied by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is a notorious murder who is an accused in a murder case as well as in another Session Case involving infliction of serious injuries on somebody with surgical blade. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent was detained under KAAPA. we are of the view that the investigation presently conducted by the 3rd respondent, however sincere, will not deliver goods. We, therefore, direct the 2nd respondent to personally supervise the investigation. The 2nd respondent shall constitute a team of efficient officers including the 3rd respondent for conducting investigation into the crime already registered. The above team will conduct vigorous and sincere investigation so that the 4th respondent and Nandini @ Anju are traced out at the earliest and produced before a competent Judicial Magistrate or before this court. If any information comes the way of the petitioner regarding the whereabouts of her daughter and the 4th respondent, she shall readily convey such information to the 3rd respondent. Similarly, if the investigating team gets correct information regarding the whereabouts of Nandini @ Anju, such information shall be conveyed to the petitioner and as far as possible when Nandini @ Anju is being produced before the Magistrate, notice shall be given to the petitioner.
The writ petition is closed for the time being. Call on 11/1/2013.