(1.) Petitioner complained to the jurisdictional police that his wife is missing. Police does not dispute that Ext.P-2 was issued to him acknowledging receipt of that complaint. Their version is that on the date of receipt of that complaint, the petitioner's wife came to the police station with another woman, Sathikumari; that on counselling by the police, it appeared that the petitioner's wife is not happy with him and wants to live apart. According to the police, they, therefore, let her go with the aforesaid Sathikumari. Whatever be the impression gathered by the police officers on their interaction with the petitioner, his wife and Sathikumari; we are unable to accept that the course of action adopted by the police was in accordance with law. On the face of the petitioner's complaint that a person is missing, what would have happened to the police in connection with that acknowledged reporting of a person missing, if the petitioner's wife cannot be traced thereafter Why should the uniformed police face such a situation
(2.) Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, for short, "the Act", prescribes the action to be taken when information is received that a person is missing. That provision reads as follows:
(3.) In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act it is obligatory that the information regarding the missing of a person shall be registered in a manner similar to the procedure prescribed for a cognizable offence. Immediate action has to be then taken, to locate the missing person.