Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 205
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & S. NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Rajaram
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District & Another
H.C.P(MD)No.1542 of 2012
Decided On : 09-01-2013
For the Petitioner:N. Anandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Ramachandran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court's decision was based on the ongoing investigation and the steps being taken to trace out the missing person.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Missing Person - The court found that the second respondent had registered a case for 'man missing' and was taking steps to trace out the missing man, leading to the closure of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son went missing after his marriage, and the petitioner filed a complaint. The second respondent registered a case for 'man missing' and was taking steps to trace the missing man.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was being conducted in the right direction and ordered the closure of the Habeas Corpus Petition, with a direction for the second respondent to continue the investigation and trace out the missing man expeditiously.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the investigation was ongoing and steps were being taken to trace out the missing man.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was closed, with a direction for the second respondent to continue the investigation and trace out the missing man expeditiously.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. The petitioner is the father of one Ananth, aged 33 years. Mr.Ananth was married to one Jeevalakshmi on 30.11.2012. On 1.12.2012, the bridegroom and the bride has gone to the house of the parents of the bride but the bridegroom, namely, Ananth did not reach the house of his father in law and from that onwards he is found missing. In this regard, the petitioner has given a complaint. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on the same.
2. When the matter was taken up, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, the second respondent has registered a case in Crime No.248 of 2012 for “man missing” and investigation is taken in the right direction and steps are being taken to trace out the missing man. The said statement is recorded.
3. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary in this Habeas Corpus Petition. The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed except making it clear that the second respondent shall continue to investigate the matter and trace out the missing man, expeditiously.
