Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The facts of the case that give rise to the Habeas corpus Petition reflects an appal story. The detenu Ramsamy Udayar, S/o.Rangappan, is aged about 80 years. The petitioner who is none other than the son of the detenu has approached this Court with this petition with the following allegations: (a)The petitioner had obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.60,000/-from the 3rd respondent by name Manimuthu, S/o.Nallamuthu, for his family needs. The petitioner has repaid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-towards interest alone. As there was a failure of agriculture, he could not repay the principal amount. With the help of henchmen and goondas, the 3rd respondent threatened the petitioner and obtained the documents by force from his father, the detenu, relating to the property as if the petitioner still owes a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the 3rd respondent. (b)Apart from the above, the 3rd respondent with the help of his men and goondas had kidnapped his father two years back and forced him to execute and register some documents under the threat. He lodged several complaints with the respondent police, viz., the Superintendent of Police, Tanjavur and the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaattathaikottai Police Station only to meet with no action. Thereafter, he issued a lawyer notice dated 19.06.2006 to the 3rd respondent calling upon him not to give any threat to him and to his family members and also to release his father who had been kept under illegal custody. He also gave a complaint to the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu dated 21.08.2006. He also gave a complaint to the State Human Rigths Commission, Tamil Nadu. (c)The State Human Rights Commission in its proceedings dated 07.09.2006 forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to look into the complaint and do the needful. As there was no response, once again the petitioner lodged a complaint on 09.01.2007 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaattathaikottai Police Station, the 2nd respondent herein to trace his father who had been kept under illegal by the 3rd respondent. Despite of the above efforts, his father was not traced and therefore the present petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. Despite of the above efforts, his father was not traced and therefore the present petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the petitioner has not specifically stated the exact date from which the detenu was missing or he was kidnapped by the 3rd respondent except stating that his father was kidnapped by the 3rd respondent with his men and goondas two years back. Though the petitioner claims that his father was kidnapped two years back, except by sending a legal notice to the 3rd respondent on 19.06.2006, he did not take any step immediately to lodge the complaint to the police, but except lodging a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission on 21.08.2006. As could be seen from the very affidavit of the petitioner, there appears to be some dispute regarding money transaction between the petitioner, his father-the detenu and the 3rd respondent on which we cannot express any opinion while disposing this petition since those disputes should be resolved by elsewhere by appropriate legal proceedings. 4. That alone does not redress the grievance of the petitioner espoused before this Court. Though the petitioner has not specifically mentioned as to the exact date from which the detenu was missing, the fact remains that the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.08.2006 addressed to the State Human Rights Commission was duly considered and by its proceedings dated 07.09.2006, it had forwarded the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, “to look into the complaint and do the needful”. In the complaint, the petitioner has specifically stated that due to the money transaction and the consequential failure on the part of the petitioner to repay the said amount, the detenu was kidnapped by the 3rd respondent with the assistance of his henchmen and goondas some two years back. This complaint was in fact, received by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur who in turn had forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to conduct the investigation who in turn had directed the 2nd respondent to take action in accordance with law. 5. This complaint was in fact, received by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur who in turn had forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to conduct the investigation who in turn had directed the 2nd respondent to take action in accordance with law. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was therefore, directed to produce the case diary relating to the action taken by the 2nd respondent on the proceedings of the State Human Rights Commission dated 07.09.2006. To our dismay, we were informed that the said petition was closed as Mistake of Fact on 14.02.2007. First of all, it must be mentioned here that the officer who has taken the said petition for enquiry, has not at all examined the very complainant himself. He has merely closed the petition by placing reliance on the fact that it was a civil dispute by totally ignoring the latter portion of the complaint, viz., the missing of the old man of 80 years. Hence, the petitioner was again made to lodge another complaint on 09.01.2007. That complaint, also though received, was registered only on 17.07.2007, that too, after the notice in this petition was issued and the pendency of the said petition was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. 6. The manner in which the petitions for a “man missing” is being treated nowadays, is of great concern. The personal liberty of an individual is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law” is sacred and a cherished right under the constitution. Such personal liberty of an individual flows from the above fundamental right. The concept of human right also flows from the above Article 21. The human rights are derived from dignity and are inherent in human beings. Human rights by their very nature, constitute the minimum that is necessary for the individual to live in a civilized society as a free person with dignity and respect in that society. These rights are positive in nature and as they make it duty of the State to ensure for realisation of these rights. 7. Normally, violation or infringement of human rights was viewed only when such violation or infringement is from the State or from its organs. These rights are positive in nature and as they make it duty of the State to ensure for realisation of these rights. 7. Normally, violation or infringement of human rights was viewed only when such violation or infringement is from the State or from its organs. But, there are certain areas where such violations of human rights are also noticed from fellow individuals. The non-statutory habeas corpus petitions are filed when the personal liberty is infringed even by a private individual and a man’s freedom is curtailed by private individuals or put such person in confinement. Persons aggrieved approaches this Court seeking for redressal at the hands of the police to trace out such person and set him at liberty. 8. Apart from other functions like maintenance of law and order, etc., the police has got a wide range duty by way of service to the community that offers as a consequence of the availability of police for public which includes to search a person who is allegedly missing from the public or the company of his family. The duty cast upon the police in such matters is of vital importance as it relates to the personal liberty of an individual and that liberty cannot be undermined by the police by treating the petitions of man missing in a casual manner and closing the same. 9. The present case portrays a sorry picture as to how a person approaches the police with the grievance of either “man missing” or “illegal custody” is being treated. As we have already indicated, the petitioner has been dragged on to make a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission as to the alleged kidnap of the detenu aged by the 3rd respondent. Keeping the right conferred on an individual by the Constitution, the petition was referred to the police for action. The 2nd respondent police ought not to have closed the petition or referred the same as Mistake of Fact only on the ground that there was civil dispute between the parties. Of course, the 2nd respondent may be right in closing the petition by referring the same as Mistake of Fact as enquiry revealed that there was a civil dispute. The 2nd respondent police ought not to have closed the petition or referred the same as Mistake of Fact only on the ground that there was civil dispute between the parties. Of course, the 2nd respondent may be right in closing the petition by referring the same as Mistake of Fact as enquiry revealed that there was a civil dispute. But, the petition with the allegations contained therein as to the missing of a man ought not to have been closed or referred as Mistake of Fact as has been done in this case. 10. The complaint is in respect of two grievances. Firstly, it relates to the forcible signatures obtained by the 3rd respondent from the detenu and secondly, kidnapping of the detenu and keeping him in illegal custody. Insofar as the first part is concerned, the complaint could be closed as a Mistake of Fact. Insofar as the second part, the was properly considered by the State Human Rights Commission and directed the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, to do the needful. The complaint as to the “Missing Man” ought not have been closed without a proper investigation. As we have already pointed out, it involves the personal liberty of an individual who had been allegedly kept under illegal custody. It is also painful to note that the respondent police has not even made any attempt to find out the fate of the detenu for over a period of one year and there was total inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent to act on the complaint. That apart, the complaint dated 09.01.2007 given by the petitioner again as to the alleging illegal custody of the detenu by the 3rd respondent has not also been given due attention in accordance with law at least for a period of seven months, as it was registered only on 17.07.2007 and that too only when a notice in this petition was issued. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever by the 2nd respondent as to the inaction even to treat the said complaint dated 09.01.2007 at least as a petition and enquire into the same. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever by the 2nd respondent as to the inaction even to treat the said complaint dated 09.01.2007 at least as a petition and enquire into the same. The facts of this case compel us to direct the police officers concerned to act and take immediate and appropriate action as per law on such petitions/complaints and the petitions/complaints shall not be treated casually and closed, since such petitions expouses the infringement of the personal liberty of an individual which is guaranteed under the Constitution. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the present incumbent had assumed charge only recently and immediately on coming to know that the complaint of the petitioner has not been acted upon for quite a long period of months, he has registered the complaint on 17.07.2007 and the lapse in not acting on the complaint was only on the predecessor who had since retired. As the predecessor of the 2nd respondent, is already retired and no more in service, we are not making any orders on his lapses. However, the 2nd respondent, the present incumbent, is directed to expedite the investigation and find out the whereabouts of the detenu. 12. With the above direction, the petition is closed. The petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent are at liberty to approach this Court in case, the whereabouts of the detenue is not traced within a period of two months from today. In such contingency, the petitioner and the respondents shall have the right to reopen and reargue the petition once again.