JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that his friend (who will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the alleged detenue’ for short), is being detained by the 4^th respondent – her father.

2. The ‘alleged detenue’ was produced before us by the 4^th respondent today and what she told us was rather startling. She informed us unreservedly that she knows the petitioner only through phone, without having ever met him; and that, she did not authorize him to file this case, nor did she tell him that she was under detention. She explicitly made it clear that she does not want to have any further contact with the petitioner and requested that he be instructed not to contact her either.

3. The situation being as above, it is luculent that we do not require to exercise jurisdiction in this matter. However, we are concerned that the petitioner, who is stated to be a Police Officer, has chosen the misadventure of moving a Writ Petition of this nature. But we propose to say nothing further, lest it should detrimentally affect his career.

This Writ Petition is, consequently, dismissed.

Adverting to the need of protecting the privacy of the alleged detenue and her family, we direct the Regist