Judgment M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner Esakiyammal has brought forth this application for issuance of Habeas Corpus alleging that her daughter by name, Santhiya aged 19 years was found missing from 210. 2009. After making a search, she made a complaint on 210. 2009. Though the complaint was given, the respondent Police have not taken any steps to trace the detenu. The petitioner is having suspicion against the second and third respondents. Under such circumstances, she has filed this application. 2. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who took notice on behalf of the first respondent. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would state that a case in Crime No.1109 of 2009 for girl missing was registered. It is also pending investigation. 4. The second and third respondents appeared before the Court through counsel and they have filed an affidavit stating that they have nothing to do with the missing girl, Santhiya and in order to spoil their reputation, this application has been brought forth alleging that they have taken her but not so. At the time of enquiry, the learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the second respondent is employed and the second and the third respondents have been false implicated in the case. 5. After hearing the counsel on either side, it is seen that a case has been registered for girl missing and investigation is pending. The Court is of the opinion that it is not fit to keep the petition pending and it would be suffice to issue a direction to the respondent police. Accordingly, the respondent police is directed to investigate the matter and secure the detenu within a period of two months herefrom. If the detenu is not secured within two months, the petitioner is at liberty to come with an application before this Court for necessary relief. 6. With the above direction, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.