Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.Dayalan has brought forth this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his daughter aged 18. 2. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the petition, are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that his daughter was actually missing from 25.9.2010 onwards; that a complaint was given to the first respondent, and a case was actually registered for girl missing; but, she has not yet been secured, and under the circumstances, this petition is filed. 4. Replying to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that it is true that a case was registered on 25.9.2010, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner, for girl missing, and subsequently, she was secured at Nellore, and thereafter, her custody was handed over to the petitioner herein, and he also gave a letter to that effect. The said letter is also produced before the Court and perused. 5. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further add that again she is found missing along with the same person who kidnapped her earlier. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got to be permitted to give a fresh complaint to the first respondent police. Accordingly, permission is granted, and the first respondent police should look into the averments in the complaint, and if the circumstances require so, register a case and proceed with the matter as required by law. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.