AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Narmadha has brought forth this petition alleging that her husband
was abducted by the respondents 2 to 12 herein on 10.8.2010; that she gave a complaint to the first respondent police on 15.8.2010; that a case
was registered in Crime No. 537 of 2010 on the same day for man missing; but he has not yet been secured, and under the circumstances, this
petition is filed.
The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
From the submissions made, it would be quite clear that the respondents 2 to 12 are the persons who have actually lent money to him. It is not
the case of the petitioner that all of them have acted so, and it was only on suspicion. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a case has
actually been registered in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it would not be worthwhile to keep the petition pending, but a
direction would suffice to the first respondent police to proceed with the investigation and complete the same in accordance with law. Accordingly,
a direction is issued, and this petition is disposed of.