Dismissed

Lalitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2007WP(C)/33285/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the disappearance of the petitioner's mentally retarded son from a special school. The Court observed the petitioner's plight, directed the subordinate police officer (3rd respondent) to continue active investigation without transfer, and directed the higher police officer (2nd respondent) to monitor the process. The petition was dismissed with liberty to move later if

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to monitor investigation by 3rd respondent. No order for transfer. Petitioner's liberty to approach court later remains unfettered if attempts fail.

Lalitha Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 30TH MAGHA 1928

¶4

WP(C).No. 33285 of 2006(K)

PETITIONER:

LALITHA D/O. NATESAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O. CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

C.H.MOHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAN STATE INSTITUTE FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PANGAPPARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶16

ELSY JOSE, PROPRIETRIX,KRIPA HOSTEL, PANGAPPARA, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

R.BASANT, J

¶20

W.P(C).No.33285 of 2006

¶21

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner, a woman, is that her son Deepu Prasannan, aged about 22 years, a mentally retarded person, having more than 50% of mental disability, who was admitted to the 4^th respondent institution on 20.09.2006, is found missing from 20.10.2006. A complaint was lodged before the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly a crime - Crime No.481 of 2006, under the caption `Man Missing' has been registered at the Kazhakkuttom Police Station. The petitioner's son has not been traced so far. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court with the grievance that appropriate steps are not taken after proper investigation of the said crime.

¶24

The 3^rd respondent was directed to file a statement. The case diary has been placed before this Court for perusal. The statement of the 3^rd respondent shows that the needful is being done. But in spite of the best effort of the investigator, the son of the petitioner could not be traced.

¶25

Plight of the petitioner deserves sympathy. Her mentally retarded child, who was admitted to a special school, is now not traceable. The system must do everything within its command to

¶26

¶27

W.P(C).No.33285 of 2006

¶28

ensure that the petitioner's grievance is redressed. Alert, efficient and meaningful investigation must be conducted by the 3^rd respondent. A perusal of the statement filed and the case diary reveals that the 3^rd respondent has been actively conducting investigation. No further or specific directions need be given to transfer the investigation to any other officer. However, I am satisfied, that the direction can be issued to the 2^nd respondent to monitor the investigation, which is being conducted by the 3^rd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 shall make every endeavour to trace the son of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶29

I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further specific directions are necessary. But I make the observation that the 2^nd respondent must monitor the steps taken by the 3^rd respondent in the matter and both of them must make every endeavour to trace the son of the petitioner.

¶30

This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner's liberty to approach this Court later, if the attempts do not bear fruit, will remain unfettered. He can move this Court if necessary later - not within a period of 3 months from this date.

¶31

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶32

rtr/-

Lalitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnankutty and Others Vs State of Kerala

Thadiyananikkal Veettil George Vs Forest Range Officer

P.Ramankutty Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Devassia Vs Georgekutty Peter

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Reji Vs State of Kerala