Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM ,J 1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Ushakumari has brought forth this habeas corpus petition for the production of her brother R. Raju, aged about 42 years before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that her younger brother, aged 42 years, was found missing from the year 2002. Though number of complaints have been given to the respondent-police, no steps have been taken by them. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a complaint to the respondent-police through Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on 16.3.2005, but they have not secured him. Under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to file this petition before this Court. 4. In answer to the above, learned counsel appearing for third and fourth respondents submits that third respondent is the wife of the detenu and fourth respondent is the father of third respondent. After the marriage, which took place in 1995, the third respondent was living with her husband in the native place. In 2005, he left the native place and came to Chennai and staying with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to the native place of the third respondent and insisted her to release the remaining property for which the third respondent was not amenable. Under such circumstances, false allegations were made against the third respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.6 of 2010 was registered for "Man missing" and it is under investigation. 6. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered for "Man missing" and investigation is on. Even the complaint would go to show that as per the petitioners averment, the detenu was found missing from 2002. In the meanwhile, the detenu has sold part of the property to the third party. For the remaining property to be sold, the detenu is not amenable. Under such circumstances, the question of anything to be proceeded against the third respondent or other respondents would not arise. It would be suffice to issue direction to the respondent-police to secure the detenu within a reasonable time. For the remaining property to be sold, the detenu is not amenable. Under such circumstances, the question of anything to be proceeded against the third respondent or other respondents would not arise. It would be suffice to issue direction to the respondent-police to secure the detenu within a reasonable time. With this direction, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.