Judgment M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this court, one Amsaveni has brought forth this petition for the production of her son, viz., A.G.Ramsundaram, aged about 31 years, who is said to be missing. 2.This court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. 3.The gist of the case of the petitioner is that her son A.G.Ramsundaram, the detenue, aged about 31 years was found missing from 012. 2009 and a complaint was given by the wife of the detenue to the respondent police. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a case was registered for "Man Missing", no steps have been taken by the respondent police to trace and secure him and under such circumstances, the petitioner was forced to file this petition before this court. 4.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the case was registered on 112. 2009 in Cr.No.3114/2009 for the offence punishable u/s.364[A] IPC, against two persons, viz., Selvaraj and Mahesh and the investigation is going on. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this court that the wife of the alleged detenue has the Banian Unit under an agreement to the said Selvaraj and Mahesh and also received the sale consideration to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs from them. It is submitted that the complaint has been lodged by the wife of the detenue while the habeas corpus petition is filed by the mother of the detenue and not by the wife. 5.As could be seen from the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was a sale transaction of the Banian Unit which belong to the wife of the detenue and the consideration of Rs.10 lakhs has also been received. The above facts casts a doubt in the minds of the court as to whether it was a drama enacted by the petitioner, the mother of the detenue and also the wife who gave the complaint to the respondent police for man missing in Cr.No.3114/2009 for the offence u/s.364[A] IPC on 112. 2009. It is also seen that the investigation is going on. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition need not be kept pending and it would be suffice to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to investigate the matter. 2009. It is also seen that the investigation is going on. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition need not be kept pending and it would be suffice to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to investigate the matter. 6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to investigate into the matter in the proper perspective and also in accordance with law.