MEENAKSHI W/O SRI P. ANJN Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-1, THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION HULLAH ALLI NANJANAGUDU TALUKA MYSORE DISTRICT, P. ASHOKAN S/O P. INBIUCHUNNIPILLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus is filed by one Meenakshi, wife of P. Anjan, on the averment that her husband who was residing with the petitioner and working at the farm house of the third respondent at Nanjungud, had been taken by the third respondent to Kerala with the pretext of providing him Homeopathic treatment, about 10 months prior to the presentation of the petition but had not returned nor had the petitioner any information about her husband and repeated requests of the petitioner to the third respondent to disclose the whereabouts of her husband, having not elicited any response and the third respondent not giving proper reply to the queries of the petitioner and further efforts of the petitioner by filing a compliant in crime No. 0068/2012 before the second respondent, having only resulted in the third respondent filing a false case against the petitioner in O.S. No. 286/2012, on the file of the Court of Principle Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nanjangud, wherein it is pleaded that husband of the petitioner was only a worker in the family property and had left two years ago and his whereabouts are not known etc. Petitioner suspecting that the third respondent is keeping the husband in illegal custody has presented this petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. On 30.07.2012, Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor had taken notice for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and requested time to place information if any before this Court.

(2.) SRI H.S. Chandramouli, learned SPP has placed before the Court an affidavit of Sri Shashi Kumar, Sub -Inspector of Police of Hullahalli Police Station, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District, which interalia states that the police on conducting the enquiry at the native place of the alleged detenue i.e., Thannirikkum Poyil House, Valiyaparamba P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala and on showing the photographs of the person, the parents identified the person as their second son and his name was Abdul Rehman, son of Imbichikoya Haji and he has also known as Anjan; that their second son was of the age of 25 years, left the place and had settled in Mysore; that he was carrying on the avocation of distribution of medicines and the third respondent was carrying on some agricultural operations in Hura village, Nanjungud taluk, Mysore. The said Anjan had joined the third respondent and was residing with him and was visiting his native place once in six months and what is material is that the deponent learnt that the said Anjan died on 02.11.2011 and was cremated in Kabristan near Katrimal Masjid situated at Kerala - the native place of the person. The deponent - Sub Inspector has recorded the statements of the relatives and the deponent was satisfied about the same and on further enquiry it was revealed that the person named Abdul Rehman and Anjan, is one and the same and the said person had died on account of cancer as indicated in the death certificate and medical records and as per the statement from the relatives and therefore, stated that the question of production of the body of the person does not arise and writ petition may be dismissed etc.

(3.) SRI Dalawai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is the factual position, the petitioner on the other hand was kept in the dark about the same by the third respondent and had given an impression as though the petitioner's husband was alive even during February 2012 and therefore, necessary action should be initiated against the third respondent etc. While it may not be necessary nor feasible for this Court to investigate the matter as to the possible that criminal acts that can be attributed to the third respondent, so far as the petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus does not survive, in view of the fact that the person is reported to be dead even during November 2011 and therefore, while petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedy elsewhere in accordance with law, this writ petition is dismissed.