IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.86 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T.L. JAYAMMA WIFE OF K. VIJAYADEV AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI RAVISHANKAR SON OF K. VIJAYADEV AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SIDDEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 446.
(BY SRI: D.C. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA CITY, R.P. ROAD MANDYA-571 401.
... PETITIONERS 2. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR MANDYA CENTRAL POLICE STATION D.C. OFFICE ROAD MANDYA-571 401.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:SANDESH J. CHOUTA, AAG ALONG WITH SRI: S.V. GIRIKUMAR, AGA) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO TRACE AND PRODUCE THE 4TH SON OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 SRI S.V.LOKESH, SON OF K.VIJAYADEV, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND MAY PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PETITION.
***** THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the detenue Sri.S.V.Lokesh has been missing since the year 2017. The petitioners are the mother and brother of the missing person.
2. A status report is filed by the respondents- State. They have stated that a missing complaint was lodged on 28.04.2017. Ever since then, substantial efforts have been made to trace out the said person. The efforts made by them has been narrated in the status report filed therein. Subsequently, a ‘C’ report has been filed on 06.05.2019. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to proceed in accordance with law. Annexure-R1 is the copy of the judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mandya in O.S.No.77 of 2017. It is a suit for recovery of Rs.25,45,000/- against the detenue. The suit was decreed. Therefore, it is submitted that since the detenue had suffered huge loans, he has deliberately gone missing.
3. Be that as it may, we accept the reasons as narrated in the status report. They have also narrated the efforts made by the police to trace him out. Since a ‘C’ report has been filed, the question of considering the Habeas Corpus would not be appropriate.
Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are always at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-