Dismissed

Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC8 Dec 2010WP(Crl.)/134/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal writ petition for habeas corpus filed by the son of a missing person. The Court held that police investigations indicated the missing person was deliberately absconding due to debts. As there was no evidence of illegal detention, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not invoked.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order for issuance of habeas corpus.

Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 134 of 2007(S) ---------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

AJU VIJAYAMOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAMOHANAN PILLAI, JAYA NIVAS, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶17

CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 TO R4

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶21

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007-C

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Basant,J.

¶25

This judgment must be read in continuation of the various orders passed by this Court in the matter resting with the last order passed by us on 1/11/10.

¶26

The petitioner is the son of the alleged detenue - one Jayakumari', aged about 52 years at the time of her alleged disappearance on 12/12/06. Complaint was lodged; but the alleged detenue was not traced. The crime was registered under the caption person missing'; but the investigation did not succeed in tracing of the missing woman. Jayakumari, the said missing person, could not be traced by the police and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court on 29/5/07 with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus

¶27

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 2 :-

¶28

directing the police to produce her before this Court. This petition was admitted. Directions were issued from time to time. Specific directions were issued to the highest police officials in the State to monitor the investigation. The Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum, has been monitoring the investigation for a long period of time. Still the police have not been able to achieve success. The matter stood posted to 1/12/10 with directions to the Additional D.G.P. who is monitoring the investigation to file a detailed statement.

¶29

A detailed statement dated 29/11/10 has been filed by Sri. Vinson M. Paul, IPS., Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum. In such report, the Additional D.G.P. (Crimes) has given details of the various steps that have been taken by the police at different levels in the investigation of this crime i.e., Crime No.381/06 under the caption `person missing' of the Chirayinkil Police Station. It was re-numbered as CBCID Crime No.131/CR/Tvm/09.

¶30

To cut a long story short, the Additional D.G.P. reports that investigation had revealed that on 12/12/06 the alleged detenue had left her house under circumstances which indicate that she deliberately wanted to make herself scarce. It is the

¶31

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 3 :-

¶32

impression gathered by the police by the long investigation that the alleged detenue/missing person Jayakumari was used to a life of enviable luxury. She was heavily indebted to persons. She

¶33

was under great pressure from her creditors. One of the creditors had allegedly committed suicide a few days prior to her alleged disappearance on 12/12/06. Unable to cope with the pressure from her creditors, the police now conclude that the alleged detenue must have made herself scarce and is deliberately absconding. All efforts by the police have not succeeded in tracing the alleged detenue.

¶34

It may not be inapposite in this context to note that the police themselves have concluded that one Anilkumar, the driver of the alleged detenue, appears to be having information about the circumstances under which the alleged detenue is missing; but he is not co-operating with the police. He has been interrogated closely; but no positive results have been achieved. He was subjected to polygraph test. According to the police that test indicated that he is deceptively suppressing information from the Investigators. He was further questioned; but without any positive result. The police wanted the said witness Anilkumar to be subjected to Narco analysis; but he has refused

¶35

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 4 :-

¶36

to co-operate and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court the police have not been able to insist that he must undergo Narco analysis. The Additional D.G.P. reports that the said Anilkumar is kept under close watch. Police are continuing the investigation. They expect positive results to be achieved. The said Anilkumar is under close monitoring and it is the wish/hope of the police that the mystery of disappearance of the alleged detenue can be resolved in the near future, if not immediately.

¶37

However, it is asserted by the Additional D.G.P.(Crimes) in his statement and it is reiterated by the learned Government Pleader that in any event there is absolutely nothing to even remotely suggest that the missing person Jayakumari is under any illegal detention or confinement of any person. The learned Government Pleader points out that even the petitioner does not have a specific case that the missing person, his mother, is under the illegal confinement or detention of any one. The learned Government Pleader, in these circumstances, submits that the proceedings may now be closed. The police shall, however, make every endeavour to trace the alleged detenue and complete the investigation in the crime. For the reason that

¶38

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 5 :-

¶39

there is absolutely no indications to suggest that the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue of a writ of habeas corpus can or need be invoked in this case, this proceeding may now be closed and the petition may be dismissed, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to place any indications before Court to make a choice between the theory of absconding by the alleged detenue and her alleged detention or confinement. In fact, the petitioner also has not chosen to make any specific assertion of illegal detention or confinement of the alleged detenue.

¶41

We do, in these circumstances, conclude that there are no circumstances whatsoever to justify the invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. This petition, in these circumstances, deserves only to be dismissed.

¶42

This is not to say that the police need not continue the investigation. Every effort must be made by the police to ensure that the missing person is traced. We have no hesitation to state that the said driver Anilkumar will have to be subjected to close scrutiny and monitoring and will have to be questioned

¶43

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 6 :-

¶44

afresh again notwithstanding the earlier efforts made to question him. The police having satisfied themselves that he is not revealing the whole truth, it appears to us that it is clear now where the police have to concentrate the investigation. The possibility of reaching or having access to the missing person through that driver of hers will have to be actively pursued by the police.

¶45

If the investigation does not proceed on proper lines, needless to say, the option of the petitioner to approach the courts under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition.

¶46

With the above observations this writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.

¶47

Sd/R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶48

Nan/ //true copy

¶49

P.S. to Judge

¶50

W.P.(Cri) No.134 of 2007 -: 7 :-

Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.G.Saji Vs Smt.Shiji.S.

Anupama Vs Suseelan

Soman Vs Anitha & Others

Saheer Vs Asmabi

Mini Ashok Madhav Vs Ashok Madhav

Sri.Abdu Rahiman Vs Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar & Others