VALSALA DEVI AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. GIREESH KUMAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KIZHAKKEKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN Vs. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second petitioner. The wife of the latter is aged 24. He is employed at Thiruvananthapuram. About 11/2 months ago his wife started working with a private firm in Thiruvananthapuram. At 1 in the afternoon on 19.9.2016 he dropped her at K.S.R.T.C bus stand at Thiruvananthapuram, from where she left in a bus for Pala. Thereafter, she was missing. On the same day at 10.30 in the night he informed the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, about it. But the latter sent back the former with a direction to meet him again the next morning. On the next day by about noon the 4th respondent recorded the second petitioner's statement and registered a case. On 21.9.2016 the police got information that the 5th respondent had abducted the second petitioner's wife. On the next day, the police informed him that they had got information about the whereabouts of his wife and instructed him to be available at Thiruvananthapuram. On 23.9.2016 the 4th respondent asked him not to go to the Police Station unless he was summoned. On 23.9.2016 by 12 noon when the petitioner met the 4th respondent at the Police Station, the latter told him that one lady advocate had assured him that the missing woman would be produced before the police before 4 in the evening. He was asked to wait at his residence. At about 3 p.m he got the information that one woman appeared before the Judicial Magistrate concerned along with an advocate and the learned Magistrate recorded her statement. The petitioners rushed to the court only to learn that the woman and the lady advocate had left. The woman told the Magistrate that she had eloped with the 5th respondent, who was a colleague of hers. At about 3.45 p.m the second petitioner was summoned to the police station as the police wanted to close his complaint. The petitioners alleged that the missing person was illegally detained by the 5th respondent with the assistance of respondents 6 to 8. The petitioners prayed that a writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued commanding respondents 1 to 4 police officers to produce the missing woman before this court.

(2.) When the case was taken up for hearing on 17.11.2016, it was reported that the missing woman had already reached the house of the first petitioner and the writ petition might be closed. We would have disposed of the Writ Petition immediately but for certain reasons which we shall presently mention.

(3.) As stated earlier, serious allegations were raised against the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. It is even stated that the part of the incident subsequent to the filing of the complaint was a drama enacted by the police. On 17.10.2016 the second respondent, District Police Chief, filed a report, in which he claims that he conducted an enquiry into the conduct of the 4th respondent. But the report is silent about the allegations against the 4th respondent. In his Annexure R2(h) statement the 4th respondent has admitted that at about 11 p.m on 19.9.2016 the second petitioner gave him in writing the information that his wife was missing and that he recorded the statement of the latter only on the next day. It is in spite of this admission the District Police Chief had the audacity to tell this court that there was no 'fault or lapse' on the part of the Sub Inspector. It is left to our imagination to conjure up the nature of the enquiry conducted by the District Police Chief. The report is perfunctory in nature and it is not one that is expected of a responsible police officer like him. We are compelled to take the view that he has maintained silence about the allegations against the 4th respondent because he knew that they are not false. There are other reasons also for us to make this observation.