ISSAC Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are husband and wife have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe Community (Malayarayan Christian). Petitioners' daughter was hospitalized for treatment from 9.9.2010 to 14.9.2010 and petitioners were with her in the hospital. When they reached home after discharge they came to know about the disappearance of their son. Police came to the house of the petitioners stating that a complaint is received from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the complaint of the 3rd respondent is that the son of the petitioners had illicit relationship with the 3rd respondent and she became pregnant. Police constable directed the petitioners to be present before the 2nd respondent on 22.9.2010. They were again asked to be present with their son. Petitioners submitted complaint regarding man missing. Petitioners have been abused, it is alleged.

(3.) Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, on instructions, would submit that Crime No.887/2010 of Kattappana police station has been registered against the son of the petitioners and that the son is absconding. It is in connection with the enquiry and to trace out petitioners' son that police party went to the residence and also called over the petitioners to the police station. He would further submit that, there will be no harassment of the petitioners and if petitioners are to be called to the station, it will be preceded by notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. We record the submission of the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution and dispose of the writ petition. We make it clear that, it will be open to the official respondents to investigate the crime in accordance with law.