Mohanan, J.
The petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of one Sudhakaran, preferred the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus and issue Rule Nisi Notice directing respondents 1 to 7 to trace out the detenu, the husband of the petitioner-Sudhakaran @ Manian, from the illegal detention and to have his body before this Court and set him at liberty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was missing from 21.8.2009 onwards, who is aged 51 years and was working in Azad Hotel, Chalai Main Road, Thiruvananthapuram, owned by the 9th respondent, of which the 10th respondent is the General Manager.
According to the petitioner, her husband was working for the last 20 years in the above hotel and he used to return home by 8 p.m. It is also the case of the petitioner that her husband had undergone Psychiatric treatment at Sree Ramakrishna Ashramam Hospital, Sasthamangalam and later the disease was completely cured. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the detenu did not return home on 21.8.2009, the petitioner made enquiries with the hotel authorities as well as the relatives, friends etc., but the detenu could not be traced out. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, Ext.P1 complaint was filed, on the basis of which Crime No.309/09 was registered in Ariyancode Police Station. Ext.P2 is the FIR in the above crime. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P2 crime was registered as early as on 26.9.2009, the detenu is not traced out by the Police and the Police is lethargic in conducting proper investigation.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 11.11.2014, as this Court was satisfied with the facts stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 9 and 10, their personal appearance was dispensed with. In the very same order, this Court suo motu impleaded the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range, as additional 11th respondent and directed him to supervise the investigation and to personally look into the entire case. He was also directed to file a report through the learned Public Prosecutor before this Court regarding the progress of the matter, on or before 5.12.2014.
5. Accordingly, when the case is taken up today, the learned Public Prosecutor made available to us a statement of facts submitted by Sri.Manoj Abraham, I.G. of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range. We have perused the report.
After having stated various steps that had taken to trace out the detenu, the I.G. of Police has pointed out that he is supervising the progress of the investigation on a daily basis and directed the Special Team to do the following on priority basis :
• “To prepare more crime memos and circulate to all Police Stations and to ensure the replies are received.
• To publish the latest photograph of Sudhakaran in all the Malayalam dailies once again.
• To take the further statement of the complainant and to collect the information about the relatives of Sudhakaran and their native places and conduct the investigation directly or with the help of the Police Stations in those areas.
• To affix the enlarged photograph in all Police Stations and precipitate areas.
• To enquire in all the mental hospitals of the State and outside, because he was treated for mental disorder earlier.
• To investigate in the orphanages, almshouses within Thiruvananthapuram District and adjacent areas.
• To specifically concentrate on Hotels/Bakeries for in all probability, he will be working in some Hotels only.
• To contact the Hotel/Restaurant Association throughout the State to trace him out.
• To contact SCRB's of other States and verify with them on such a person.”
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the report furnished by the I.G. of Police, we are satisfied that the Police is conducting an effective investigation to trace out the husband of the petitioner. We hope that, as and when required, 11th respondent/the I.G. of Police will re- constitute the Special Investigating Team, if necessary and strengthen the investigation on the basis of the investigation so far conducted. Since it is a case of man- missing, we are of the view that, this writ petition need not be retain on the file of this Court and the same can be disposed of on the basis of the report filed by the I.G. of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range.
In the result, this writ petition is closed and 11th respondent/the I.G. of Police is directed to effectively supervise the investigation, which being conducted by the Special Investigating Team and we hope that, as we indicated earlier, the said Officer will re-constitute a new Special Team, on the basis of the experience of the present Investigating Team, as and when required and he will se that all what are required to trace out the husband of the petitioner will be done.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.