The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to trace and

produce the elder son of the petitioner Preethu H.K.,

S/o Kumara, aged about 23 years before this Court.

It is stated in the petition that the elder son

of the petitioner namely Preethu H.K has studied upto

SSLC and discontinued his further studies and doing

agriculture work. The younger son of the petitioner

Chinmay H.K. is studying B.Pharma and they are all

permanent

residents

of

Hiremarali

Village,

Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District depending upon

the agriculture for their livelihood. It is further stated

that when things stood thus, on 14.05.2021 at about

3.30 pm the elder son of the petitioner Preethu H.K.

aged about 23 years, along with his cousin Kiran H.D.,

aged about 24 years went out and did not return back

to their home and on thorough search, the scooter

- 4 -

bearing No.KA-11-EJ-3412 was found near the land of

Chandru. Thereafter, they enquired with all their

relatives, friends and villagers, but whereabouts of the

Preethu and Kiran were not known. Thereby, they

were missing from the lawful custody of the petitioner.

Accordingly, Sri. Devaraju, brother of the petitioner

had filed a missing complaint before respondent No.2

police station and the same was registered in Crime

No.209/2021 for man missing. Since the police have

not taken any action, the petitioner is filed the present

Habeas Corpus writ petition for the relief sought for.

In response to the notice issued by this

Court, Inspector of Police, Pandavapura Police Station-

respondent has filed the status report by way of

affidavit on 14.06.2022 and produced the copy of the

FIR and complaint as document No.1, call details of

9902026312, 8904165306 as document No.2, copy of

the bank statement as document No.3, copy of the

- 5 -

statement of the Keerthana, Hemanth, Bharath,

Karthik,

Sumanth,

Shashank,

Shivaprasad

as

document No.4, Call details record of Keerthana

mobile number as document No.5, copy of the paper

publication in newspaper as document No.6, copy of

the UDR Register as document No.7 and copy of the

acknowledgment as document No.8. It is stated that

they made efforts and still they are investigating and

specifically stated at paragraph No.10, which reads as

under:

<10. I submit that on 21.05.2021, we have

summoned the clo0se friends of Preethu, by

name Shashikanthu wherein he state that

Preethu had made a call request he for the

accommodation in Mysuru, after that he did

not receive any call, when he tried to contact

him his mobile number was switched off and

he did not have any information thereafter=.

4.

Admittedly in the present case, the missing

person/son of the petitioner is not a minor, he is aged

- 6 -

about 23 years and he discontinued his studies and

has been involved in agricultural work and according

to paragraph No.2 of the writ petition, his son and one

Kiran both aged about 23 and 24 years respectively

went out of the house and they did not return to home

and on the complaint made by the brother of the

petitioner, the jurisdictional police registered a case of

missing. Though the police made all efforts, the

whereabouts of the missing persons were not known.

5.

The fact remains that the writ petition

Habeas

Corpus

filed

by

the

petitioner

is

not

maintainable in view of the dictum of the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Sudharani Vs. The

State of Karnataka through Home Secretary and

Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 731, wherein the

Co-ordinate Bench at paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 held

as under:

- 7 -

<3.

Learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondents

submits that, on the facts of the present case,

no writ of habeas corpus could be issued to the

respondents as it is not the petitioner9s case

that her husband has been detained wrongfully

by the police or any other person. In support

of his submission, he relies on a judgment of

this Court in S.K.NAIK vs. THE POLICE SUB-

INSPECTOR and also