Judgment: 1. The above petition has been filed by a girl, who is working as a Programme Coordinator and Radio Jockey in Radio Mango, Thrissur. On a complaint filed by her father that she is missing the police has registered a crime under the caption ‘man missing’. Now, she has filed the above petition stating that she is in love with one Najil C. Manuel, who is working with her, and they have decided to marry and live as husband and wife. They have already submitted an application for conducting their marriage before the Marriage Officer at Maradu, Ernakulam to solemnize and register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, is her further case. The limited prayer canvassed in the petition is to issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur to record her statement on her appearance before him, and thereafter permit her to go with any person of her choice. The aforesaid magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the crime numbered as Crime No.1096 of 2012 registered by the police, is her case. 2. After getting instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that no harassment or intimidation will be meted out to the girl even if she is traced out and detained by the police. She will be certainly produced before the Magistrate within no time, is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if she is taken into custody by the police, there is every possibility of handing her over to her father, who is stated to be a very influential person. In such a situation, according to the counsel, she will be put to serious trouble. 3. Previously, there was no statutory provision enabling the police to register a crime in a case of man missing. This Court had occasion to consider the question whether it is proper to register a crime on a complaint of man missing when it does not by itself involve any offence. 3. Previously, there was no statutory provision enabling the police to register a crime in a case of man missing. This Court had occasion to consider the question whether it is proper to register a crime on a complaint of man missing when it does not by itself involve any offence. Having regard to the need for acting upon such complaint and in taking appropriate action to trace out the person, who is stated to be missing, this Court has observed in Jose v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 234) that it is appropriate and more so necessary that when a complaint is raised over the missing of a person a crime has to be registered under the caption ‘man missing’ and the police has to take necessary steps to trace out such person. Now, under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, statutory recognition has been given for registration of the crime on information over missing of a person in a manner similar to the procedure prescribed for a cognizable offence and then for taking immediate action to locate the missing person, provided, such information gives rise to reasonable suspicion that such person is missing and there are circumstances to believe that the missing person is in danger or not under the protection of lawful guardianship or such person may be subjected to some dangerous offence or such person is absconding himself to prevent someone from implementing a lawful right declared by any court. When the statutory provision specifically empowers the police officer to register the information over the missing of the person under the circumstances referred to above in the manner prescribed for a cognizable offence, it follows that such information has to be recorded as under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’ and a crime has to be registered though no offence is made out and no accused person is to be proceeded with. Having regard to sub section (5) of Section 57 of the Police Act, it cannot be stated that there is no basis for the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that in the event of the police apprehending her she is likely to be handed over to her father and that too against her wishes. Having regard to sub section (5) of Section 57 of the Police Act, it cannot be stated that there is no basis for the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that in the event of the police apprehending her she is likely to be handed over to her father and that too against her wishes. Sub section (5) of Section 57 of the Police Act would state that if the missing person is traced out then the police shall forthwith hand over him/her to the responsible guardian or produce him/her before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. That sub section reads thus: (5) The missing person if found on enquiry shall forthwith be handed over to the responsible guardian or produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction.” However, it is to be noticed that such handing over to the responsible guardian when the missing person is traced out by the police cannot be blindly followed and given effect to without taking note of the other circumstances presented in the case. Where the missing person, in respect of whom the crime is registered, is shown to be a major, his/her inviolable fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution of India, necessarily, have to be zealously guarded, and not to be flouted. When that be so, arrest of such person, for the reason a crime is registered as to his/her missing, where there is no reason to hold that he/she has committed any offence, is impermissible. After being traced out such missing person is not liable to be detained otherwise than for the purpose of questioning and recording his/her statement producing before Magistrate. In cases where such missing person is a major and found to be fully capable of taking care of himself/herself, the police has to take steps to produce such missing person immediately before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If the enquiry satisfies the police that even such production is not warranted, it may proceed accordingly, but a report thereof should be filed before the learned Magistrate. Practicable course even in such a situation demands for obtaining a bond from such missing person to appear before the Magistrate if so directed in the enquiry on the crime registered under the FIR which has already been presented before the Magistrate. Practicable course even in such a situation demands for obtaining a bond from such missing person to appear before the Magistrate if so directed in the enquiry on the crime registered under the FIR which has already been presented before the Magistrate. Now, in the present case, on the relief canvassed in the petition where under the petitioner girl has sought for a direction to surrender before the Magistrate canvassing a case that if the police gets her custody, she would be handed over to her father/guardian against her wishes one pertinent question may arise with respect to the practical difficulty to be faced by the Magistrate on such surrender. Necessarily the Magistrate has to be satisfied that the person surrendering before him is the missing girl covered by the FIR registered by the police. That should never be viewed as an imponderable block causing impediment to the Magistrate in proceeding with an enquiry to determine the identity of the person. Even if the missing person is traced out and produced by the police, then also the Magistrate has to be satisfied as to the identity of such person. It can never be stated that the identity of the person can be fixed only with the assistance of the police. If the missing person, against whom an FIR is produced registering a crime as ‘man missing’, surrenders before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, necessarily, the Magistrate has to proceed with an enquiry, and, if such person is shown to be major capable of taking care of himself/herself as no offence has been committed by such person, recording his/her statement and being satisfied of his/her identity, the Magistrate has to release him/her. In case of surrender of such missing person, it appears, the assistance of the police is also required to fix the identity nothing prevents the Magistrate in seeking such assistance giving notice to the Assistant Public prosecutor or the police concerned. However, it is to be noted that where the missing person is a major and it is found that he/she is capable of taking care of himself/herself, for the purpose of enquiry as aforesaid, such person cannot be remanded to custody. If the enquiry thereof is not feasible to be completed on the same day of surrender on execution of a self bond by the person, he/she has to be released. If the enquiry thereof is not feasible to be completed on the same day of surrender on execution of a self bond by the person, he/she has to be released. The learned Magistrate may proceed with such enquiry in such a case on an adjourned date directing the appearance of the aforesaid person to that date. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian insulates the person proceeded as a missing person in a crime when he surrenders before the court from being vexed/harassed and put to any restraint or detention where such person is shown to be a major and fully capable of taking care of himself/herself. In case the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, and her identity and she is a major capable of taking care of herself are satisfied, then, the Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders taking note of the observations made above, in accordance with law. If satisfaction as indicated above is formed by the learned Magistrate and in the event of the girl expressing any apprehension as to her safety, or threat from any source whatsoever, the Magistrate shall issue such directions as may be found necessary to ensure her safety. Crl.M.C. is disposed of.