Judgment :- S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. It is often said that a child is a "national asset". In this era, one cannot even imagine that a child could be treated as a property of the parents so as to market the child for monetary considerations. Anyone, who likes to read this order anymore, should prepare first of all himself to avoid shedding tears, as the allegations are heartrending. In short, a male child has been transferred to several hands, like a saleable commodity allegedly for monetary considerations. 2. This Habeas Corpus Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce his male child, aged about one year, before this Court and hand over his custody to the petitioner. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has stated that he is living with his wife - Mrs.Mariammal. They belong to a very poor family. During the year 2011, according to him, he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the third respondent herein for delivery expenses of his wife. At that time, the third respondent obtained the signatures of the petitioner in blank papers. His wife delivered a male child on 24.10.2011 at Government Hospital, Palani. [The said child hereinafter shall be referred to as the "detenu"]. The petitioner has further alleged that due to poverty, he could not repay the borrowed amount to the third respondent. While so, according to him, on 29.10.2011, in the night hours, the third respondent came to his house along with unknown persons and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/-including interest. The petitioner disputed the said amount. Since the petitioner did not repay the amount, according to him, the third respondent took away the child by force without his consent on the assurance that she would return back the child to him as and when the petitioner repays a sum of Rs.15,000/- to her. 4. The petitioner has further alleged that in this regard, he made a complaint to the second respondent police. He has further stated that the second respondent enquired the respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the child. The third respondent told the petitioner that if only he could repay the money, she would get back the child. 4. The petitioner has further alleged that in this regard, he made a complaint to the second respondent police. He has further stated that the second respondent enquired the respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the child. The third respondent told the petitioner that if only he could repay the money, she would get back the child. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he came to know that the third respondent is a broker, involving in child trafficking. He learnt that the third respondent is in the habit of luring the pregnant women, who come to the hospital for delivery by paying amounts to meet out the delivery expenses and after the child is delivered, to snatch away the child and to sell the child to some other persons for higher amount. 5. The petitioner has further alleged that on 07.04.2012, during enquiry held by the second respondent police, the respondents 3 to 6 produced an unknown female child before the second respondent. The child appeared to have been suffering from asthma disease. The petitioner has further alleged that he refused to take back the child, though he was so compelled by the second respondent police. The second respondent, thereafter, advised the petitioner to wait for some more weeks assuring that he would find out the child. However, no steps were taken to locate the detenu and to return the detenu to him. With these allegations, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 6. This Habeas Corpus Petition came up for admission, on 22.11.2012. On going through the averments made in the affidavit, this Court, by order dated 22.11.2012, directed the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, to be present before this Court, as the allegations that the third respondent is a broker, doing child trafficking and that the detenu was forcibly taken away by her and sold away are all very serious and also taking into consideration the fact that according to the averments made in the affidavit, it was in the presence of the second respondent police, a female child was returned to the petitioner, instead of his male child and he had not taken back the child. Because of the above said serious allegations, this Court had taken a serious view of the matter. 7. Because of the above said serious allegations, this Court had taken a serious view of the matter. 7. When the Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 11.12.2012, on behalf of the fifth respondent, Mr.C.Arun @ Arunachalam, the learned counsel, entered appearance and notice was ordered to the other respondents, returnable by 17.12.2012. 8. On 17.12.2012, the second respondent filed a status report. In the said status report, he submitted that a complaint was received by the first respondent from the petitioner and his wife - Mariammal and the same was forwarded by the first respondent for action to the second respondent, by proceedings dated 23.04.2012. He has further stated that on 12.06.2012, the petition was taken up for enquiry. Both the parties appeared for enquiry on 12.08.2012. The petitioner submitted a copy of the statement made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, on 04.03.2012. The fifth respondent also gave a statement about the fact that the detenu was already handed over to the petitioner, after ascertaining the identification marks of the detenu. Based on the said statement of the parties, according to the second respondent, the petition was closed on 12.08.2012. 9. It is the further contention of the second respondent police, in Paragraph No.4 of the status report, that the allegations made by the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition are false. According to him, the male child was returned back to the petitioner on 07.04.2012. Thus, according to the status report filed by the petitioner, the detenu was very much in the custody of the petitioner. On the very same day, the petitioner appeared with his wife and told that the detenu was not in his custody. 10. Since the whereabouts of the detenu was not known, as the petitioner claimed that the child was not in his custody, whereas according to the second respondent police, the detenu was handed over by the third respondent to him and since there were serious allegations of child trafficking, this Court thought it fit to direct the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, to be present before this Court on 20.12.2012. Accordingly, on 20.12.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, appeared before this Court. Accordingly, on 20.12.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, appeared before this Court. On the same day, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the respondents 5 and 6 are issueless couple and they were longing for a child for a number of years. While so, they approached the third respondent for a child. The third respondent is working in the local hospital. The third respondent persuaded the respondents 5 and 6 to take the child of the petitioner in adoption. Accordingly, according to him, on 28.10.2011, a deed of adoption was entered into between them and in pursuance of the same, the male child was handed over to the fifth respondent. But, subsequently, the petitioner made a complaint to the police and an enquiry was held by the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station. During enquiry, it came to light that in consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-from the respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner had given the child in adoption to the respondents 5 and 6. Since the petitioner again demanded return of the child, in the presence of the second respondent, on 27.11.2011, the child was returned and a sum of Rs.90,000/- was returned by the petitioner. The petitioner and his wife also duly executed a deed on 28.12.2011, acknowledging the return of the child. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 further submitted that the third respondent is a broker, who arranges for adoption of destitute children and also to persuade the parents of children, born in the hospital, to give the children in adoption to third parties. The learned counsel further submitted that there is suspicion that the petitioner has got intimacy with three women and there is a talk that the children born to these three ladies have also been sold. The learned counsel also submitted that this also requires investigation. 12. In due course of the hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the earlier complaint given, the child was returned to the petitioner on 27.11.2011 itself and according to the information available to the police, the male child is in the custody of the petitioner alone. When we enquired the petitioner, who was present before this Court, he said that the child returned in the presence of the police is a male child and not a female child. When we enquired the petitioner, who was present before this Court, he said that the child returned in the presence of the police is a male child and not a female child. When it was brought to his notice that it has been stated in the affidavit that the child returned to him is a female child, he has stated that it is a mistake committed while typing. The said statement was also recorded. 13. In view of the above submissions made, this Court felt that the whereabouts of the male child born to the petitioner and his wife should be brought to light. The allegations as to whether the child was sold for consideration, whether the third respondent was involved in child trafficking and whether the petitioner himself was involved in child trafficking, as it is alleged by the respondents 5 and 6, are all matters, which should have serious concern in the mind of the police and this requires thorough investigation. 14. It was in those circumstances, this Court, on 20.12.2012, passed the following order:- "The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District shall either himself or by nominating a competent police officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, enquire into all these allegations, which have been brought before this Court between the parties and to find out the truth. While doing so, the enquiry shall have special reference to the whereabouts of the male child born and whether any female child is also involved; whether there is child trafficking going on and whether there is any racket of this kind going on in this area. The Superintendent of Police is directed to submit a report to this Court on 10.01.2013. The petitioner has to appear on that day. Post the matter on 10.01.2013." 15. On 10.01.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, appeared before this Court and submitted a detailed report after enquiry. In the said report, he has stated that the child in question was handed over by the petitioner and his wife to the fourth respondent, N.Pandiammal. The fourth respondent, in turn approached one Mathammal, w/o. Ramasamy, Palaiya Poondhurai Road, Erode, with whom she had an acquaintance, with a request to make arrangement for an adoption of the male child with the persons, who are in need of the child. The fourth respondent, in turn approached one Mathammal, w/o. Ramasamy, Palaiya Poondhurai Road, Erode, with whom she had an acquaintance, with a request to make arrangement for an adoption of the male child with the persons, who are in need of the child. It has been further stated that Mathammal told A.A. Muthusamy, a Siddha doctor of Bhavani about the male child and told him about the availability of the child. A.A.Muthusamy, in turn referred the said matter to one Nallasamy, S/o Periyanna Gounder, Balaji garden, Uhasi Pulavar Palayam, Vellode, Perunthurai Taluk, Erode District, who is working as a senior executive in Aavin dairy at Cithode, Erode District, who was desirous of adopting a male child. Then, with the help of A.A.Muthusamy, Nallasamy got an adoption of the male child namely the petitioner's child, which had been brought by Mathammal, by executing an agreement of adoption on 26.11.2011, duly signed in the presence of a Notary Public cum Advocate Mr. Paraneetharan of Bhavani, Erode District, witnessed by A.A.Muthusamy and another one Muthalif. 16. It has also been stated in the report that an enquiry made with Mathammal, revealed that she had brought one Annadurai and his wife Radha, who are the neighbours of Mathammal, after convincing them to act as the parents of the said male child. Accordingly, Annadurai and his wife Radha, put their signatures impersonating as Balamurugan and Mariammal in the adoption deed on 26.12.2011 in the presence of the Advocate cum Notary Public Bhavani. It has also been stated in the report that an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- had been given to Annadurai and Radha, by Nallasamy. Then, Annadurai handed over the said money to Mathammal, who in turn gave Rs.1,10,000/-to the fourth respondent and Muthammal gave Rs.2,000/-to Annadurai. Nallasamy had also given Rs.35,000/- to A.A.Muthusamy for other expenses. It has also been stated that on 28.12.2011, Pandiammal gave a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner Balamurugan at Palani. This has been substantiated by the statement of one Raja, an advocate of Old Ayakudi, Palani. 17. In view of the above Status Report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, we found that there are more serious issues in the matter, which need serious consideration by this Court. Here is a case where, according to the Status Report, a child was sold for Rs.1,15,000/- by Muthammal by impersonating herself as the mother of the petitioner. In view of the above Status Report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, we found that there are more serious issues in the matter, which need serious consideration by this Court. Here is a case where, according to the Status Report, a child was sold for Rs.1,15,000/- by Muthammal by impersonating herself as the mother of the petitioner. She had engaged two other persons by names Annadurai and his wife Radha to impersonate as the petitioner, Balamurugan and his wife, Mariammal, to sign in the said document. One A.A.Muthusamy, a Siddha doctor and Muthalif have also signed in the document. Mr.Nallasamy S/o.Periyaannagounder and wife Thilagavathy were present before this Court along with the male child. When we enquired, they told us that they paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-for adopting the male child. The payment was made to A.A.Muthusamy. At that time, two persons, a woman and a man, were present claiming themselves to be Balamurugan and Mariammal and they have only signed in the adoption deed, dated 26.12.2011. The document was also produced before this Court. The child has been in the custody of Nallasamy and his wife for the past one year and the child has been named Karthikeyan. 18. In view of the above, this Court passed the following order:- "In view of the above position, we deem it appropriate to implead the following persons as parties to the petition suo motu;- 1. Mr.Nallasamy, aged 57 years, S/o.Periyannagounder, Vellivalasu Now at 82, Balaji Garden, Mugasi Pulavan Palayam, Village, Vellode, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. 2. Thilagavathy, w/o, Nallasamy, 82 Balaji Garden, Pulavan Palayam, Village, Vellode, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. 3. A.A.Muthusamy, Sidha Maruthuvar, Annai Clinic, 871, Subramanian St, Kalinkkaroyan Palayam, Bavani. 4. Mathammal, W/o.Ramasamy, Old Pundurai road, Odaipallam, Erode. 5. Annadurai, S/o.Kuppusamy, Old Pundurai Road, Odaipallam, Central Theatre Back Side, Erode. 6. Mrs.Radha w/o Annadurai, Old Pundurai Road, Odaipallam, Central Theatre Back side, Erode. 7. Mr.N.Baranidharan, Advocate Rotary Public, 586, Mettur Main Road, Bavani. 8. Muthalif, S/o.Mohamed Ali, Katabomman Street, Sathyamangalam, Erode District. 9. The District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District. 8. The Registry is directed to issue notice to these newly impleaded respondents and hand over such notices to the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District, the second respondent herein, who is present in Court for the purpose of serving on the newly impleaded parties. 9. The District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District. 8. The Registry is directed to issue notice to these newly impleaded respondents and hand over such notices to the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District, the second respondent herein, who is present in Court for the purpose of serving on the newly impleaded parties. The second respondent shall collect the notice forthwith and serve the same on the newly impleaded party respondents and submit a report to this Court on 18.01.2013. 9. It is further directed that the newly impleaded respondents, namely Nallasamy and Thilagavathy shall keep the child in their custody and they shall be present before the Court on 18.01.2013 along with the child. In the meanwhile, the respondents police shall take steps to conduct DNA examination of the child with Mariammal, wife of the petitioner, to ascertain the paternity. The first respondent police shall file additional status report, if any, on the date of hearing the matter i.e. 18.01.2013. List the matter on 18.01.2013." 19. On 18.01.2013, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, notice on the newly impleaded respondents viz., respondent Nos. 7 to 15 was served. The respondents 7 to 5 were also present before this Court. Mr.Veera kathiravan, learned counsel entered appearance for respondent Nos.7, 8 and 14. Mr.T.Gowtham, learned counsel, entered appearance for respondent No.9. For respondent Nos.10 to 12, no Advocate entered appearance. For Respondent No.13, Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned counsel has entered appearance. The respondent No.15 was advised by this Court to engage the learned Additional Advocate General, to appear on behalf of her having regard to the for reaching facts involved in this case. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, was present before this Court and he had filed a status report. 20. In the said status report, he had stated, inter alia, that on the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.01.2013, a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 under Sections 384 and 406 IPC has been registered against the respondents 3 to 6. The same is under investigation. In respect of the earlier directions issued by this Court to take the child for DNA Examination, it is stated in the status report that a request was given to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani to forward the parties concerned, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai for conducting DNA Examination. The same is under investigation. In respect of the earlier directions issued by this Court to take the child for DNA Examination, it is stated in the status report that a request was given to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani to forward the parties concerned, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai for conducting DNA Examination. In respect of the direction, pertaining to the conversation recorded in compact disk, produced by the fifth respondent, it is stated in the status report that two persons had a conversation over the said child issue and one person had demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for which he refused to give such amount. 21. The respondent No.9-Doctor A.A.Muthusamy was present before this Court and when he was enquired, he told us that the respondent No.10-Mathammal approached him and said that her grand child was ready for adoption and she only, produced the respondent Nos.11 and 12, as her son and daughter-in-law respectively and she further said that they were the parents of the child in question. Believing the words of Mathammal, Annadurai and Radha, according to respondent No.9, he arranged for adoption. He further stated that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-was paid by the respondent No.7 and in the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-was handed over to Mathammal (R10). The balance of Rs.35,000/-was paid to him towards other expenses, including advocate fee. He has further stated that he did not know that Mathammal was not the grand mother and the respondent Nos.11 and 12 are not the parents of the child. The said Statement was recorded. 22. The respondent No.10-Mathammal was enquired by us. She stated that the respondent No.4-Pandiammal handed over the child to her with a request to give the child for adoption to someone else, as already Pandiammal's son had two other children to look after. Therefore, according to her, she approached the respondent No.9-Mr. A.A. Muthusamy and Mr. A.A. Muthusamy only wanted two persons to be brought to sign, as father and mother of the child. Accordingly, she arranged for respondent Nos.11 and 12. She took respondent Nos.11 and 12 to the respondent No.13 and the respondent No.9. The document was written only by the respondent Nos.9 and 13. She further stated that she never acted as the grand mother of the child. 23. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 were present. The respondent Nos.11 stated that he is an illiterate person. She took respondent Nos.11 and 12 to the respondent No.13 and the respondent No.9. The document was written only by the respondent Nos.9 and 13. She further stated that she never acted as the grand mother of the child. 23. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 were present. The respondent Nos.11 stated that he is an illiterate person. He was taken only by the respondent No.10 to be a witness and without knowing anything about the transaction, he signed. PW-10 further stated that she received a sum of Rs.1,14,000/-from the respondent No.9. Out of which, she paid Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.11 and retained a sum of Rs.2,000/- with herself. The balance of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid to Pandiammal (R4). The said pandiammal was not present before this Court. But, Mr.V.Nagendran, learned counsel had entered appearance for her. He would state that she would appear on the next hearing date. The respondent No.13-Mr.N.Baranidharan was present before this Court. He stated that he is a practising lawyer for many years and without knowing the fact that the respondents 11 and 12 are not the parents, he prepared the document and got it executed. He further stated that he believed that the respondent Nos.11 and 12, are the parents of the child, as they so represented to him. All the above statements were recorded. The respondent No.14 said that he only simply signed the document, as witness without knowing the other transactions. The respondent No.12-Mrs.Radha was not well. Therefore, her presence before this Court on the next hearing date was dispensed with. The presence of the respondent No.13 was also dispensed with. 24. In view of the above submissions made by various parties, on 18.01.203, this Court passed the following order:- "ii) All the respondents are directed to file their respective counter affidavit on or before 22.01.2013. ii) The investigation in Crime No.34 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent is hereby stayed. iii) As directed earlier, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, shall take the child in question, along with the wife of the petitioner by name Mariammal for DNA test forthwith and the Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai is directed to conduct the examination forthwith and hand over the report in a sealed cover to the second respondent, who shall, in turn, submit the same before this Court on or before 22.01.2013. iv) The Inspector of Police Mr.P.Rajkumar, who is present in Court, shall take the child in question, who is now in the custody of the respondent Nos.7 and 8, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for conducting DNA Examination. After the examination the child shall be in the custody of respondents 7 & 8. v) The petitioner and his wife Mariammal also directed to be taken by the Inspector of Police for conducting DNA test forthwith. 9. Considering the serious issues involved in this matter and having regard to the submission made by the District Social Welfare Officer, the District Collector, Dindigul, being the President of Child Welfare Committee, is also added as respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the District Collector, Dindigul and the District Collector is directed to instruct the learned Additional Advocate Genera,l in turn, to make his submission before this Court, on 22.01.2013. 10. The other parties are directed to be present before this Court on the adjourned date. It is made clear that all the other directions already given by this Court, shall be carried out by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District." 25. On 22.01.2013, when the matter came up for hearing, The Deputy Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, in his report, dated 21.01.2013, had stated that already he had extracted blood samples from the Child, K.Balamurugan, the petitioner and his wife, Mariyammal, for the purpose of DNA Typing examination. According to the report, the said examination was in progress, which would take another five days to complete. He had further stated that he would submit the report before this Court, on 29.01.2013. 26. The fourth respondent was present before this Court. She was represented by a counsel. When we enquired her, she told that on one particular day, when she was at home, she heard some wordy quarrel between the petitioner and Mrs.Mariammal on one side and some people from Periyakulam on the other side, in respect of the child in question. At the end of the quarrel, the petitioner and Mariammal, threw the child on the street and went away. She also stated that since the child was crying, out of sympathy, she took the child and kept the child in her house. She further stated that thereafter, the petitioner came again and quarreled with her, as to why she had taken the child in her custody. She also stated that since the child was crying, out of sympathy, she took the child and kept the child in her house. She further stated that thereafter, the petitioner came again and quarreled with her, as to why she had taken the child in her custody. Thereafter, according to her, the petitioner wanted to sell the child to somebody. With the consent of the petitioner, according to her, she approached the 10th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner, Mariyammal and the fourth respondent went by bus to the 10th respondent's house. On their way, according to her, the petitioner and Mariammal, got down from the bus and they did not accompany her and she alone went to the house of the 10th respondent and handed over the child. Again, the petitioner demanded money for the child. She further stated that Mathammal gave Rs.1,10,000/- to her. The said amount was paid to the petitioner in the presence of one Advocate by name Raja and one Kittan on 28.10.2011. A document was also executed for the said purpose. Subsequently, he demanded more money and there was quarrel. She was able to identify the child that had been produced by the respondents 7 and 8, as the child, which was handed over by her to Mathammal. She further stated that having received the amount from her, the petitioner has now come forward with this petition. 27. In respect of the said statement made by N.Pandiammal, we enquired the petitioner. He has stated that Pandiammal is involved in child trafficking. According to him, to his knowledge, she has already sold away four children. He further stated that Mr.Raja, Advocate at Palani has got connection with Pandiammal and he is also in a way involved in this. However, he stated that he did not receive money at all from Pandiammal. Further, the petitioner stated that he was not aware of the fact that the child was handed over to Mathammal by Pandiammal. He further stated that a signature in the document evidencing payment of Rs.80,000/-was obtained by force from him, in the Palani Town Police Station, in the presence of Ravi, Inspector of Police and Omprakash, Sub-Inspector of Police. The said statement was recorded. 28. Recording the above said statements, this Court passed the following order:- "Post the matter on 29.01.2013 at 2.15 p.m. for the Forensic lab to submit DNA Report. The said statement was recorded. 28. Recording the above said statements, this Court passed the following order:- "Post the matter on 29.01.2013 at 2.15 p.m. for the Forensic lab to submit DNA Report. The District Collector, Dindigul and the District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District are directed to make their submissions in writing as to what are the proposals they have, to control the menace of child trafficking in the District and regarding the proposed action to be taken against the people who are involved in the child trafficking." 29. On 29.01.2013, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner and his wife were present. The respondents 7 and 8 were also present along with the child in question. The 9th respondent was present. The 4th respondent was not present. The other respondents were represented by the respective counsel. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and the Inspector of Police, Dindigul were also present. 30. During the course of hearing, the District Collector, Dindigul District, filed a counter affidavit and the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District also filed a status report, wherein he has mentioned about his suggestions in respect of the future course of action to be taken in this matter. He has also produced the DNA typing report, submitted by the Deputy Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, in respect of the DNA Typing test conducted on the petitioner, Balamurugan and his wife, Mariammal and the child (Karthikeyan), in a sealed cover. 31. In the said report, it has been further stated that from the DNA typing result of the above samples, in the absence of identical twins, the alleged father K.Balamurugan and the alleged mother B.Mariammal are the biological parents of the male child Karthikeyan. From this, it is known that the petitioner and his wife are the biological parents of the child in question. However, the child has been in the custody of the respondents 7 and 8 for about one year. In respect of the future of the child, in our considered opinion, having regard to the paramount interest of the child, it would be better that the parties can sit for a talk in the presence of mediators. The petitioner and his wife agreed for the same before this Court and the respondents 7 and 8 also had agreed. In respect of the future of the child, in our considered opinion, having regard to the paramount interest of the child, it would be better that the parties can sit for a talk in the presence of mediators. The petitioner and his wife agreed for the same before this Court and the respondents 7 and 8 also had agreed. The learned counsel on either side had also suggested that the matter might be referred to Mediation. 32. In view of the same, this Court passed the following order:- "In view of the above, the issue relating to the adoption and custody of the child is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench, for mediation. The learned counsel Mr.K.Samidurai, Mrs.J.Nisha Banu and Mrs.K.Elilselvi are requested to act as Mediators and to submit a report to this Court on 31.01.2013 at 2.15 p.m. The mediators are requested to commence the mediation forthwith. Parties namely, the petitioner and his wife and the respondents 7 and 8 are directed to go to the Mediation Centre forthwith and participate in the mediation. In respect of the other issues involved in the matter, we propose to pass a detailed order on the adjourned date (31.01.2013). The further appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District is hereby dispensed with. List the matter on 31.01.2013 at 2.15 p.m." 33. On 31.01.2013, when the Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing, the Assistant Registrar (Administration)/Co-ordinator, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, of this Bench, has submitted a report, dated 30.01.2013, in MED(MD).No.32/13. In the said report, it has been stated that the Mediators Mr.K.Samidurai, Mrs.J.Nisha Banu and Mrs.K.Ezhil Selvi had mediated the issue relating to the child in question between the parties. According to the said report, the parties have agreed to settle the issue in the following terms:- "1. Both parties agreed for amicable settlement. 2. 1st party agreed to give legal adoption of their son Karthikeyan to the 2nd party. 3. Both parties agreed for proper legal adoption through Registrar Office." 34. During the course of hearing, the petitioner and his wife were present. The respondents 7 and 8 were also present along with the child. When we enquired them, they said that they have agreed for the compromise as per the terms mentioned in the report of the Mediation Centre. Both parties agreed for proper legal adoption through Registrar Office." 34. During the course of hearing, the petitioner and his wife were present. The respondents 7 and 8 were also present along with the child. When we enquired them, they said that they have agreed for the compromise as per the terms mentioned in the report of the Mediation Centre. They have further said they will go by legal procedure to make the adoption effective and valid in law. The said statement was recorded. For passing final order, and issuing further directions, the matter was adjourned to 01.02.2013. 35. Any one, who reads this order up to this stage, will only get confused, because, there are lot of turns and twists in this case in the past. Each one party has got his own allegations to make. But, from the narration of the facts, one can easily perceive that a male child had been treated as a saleable commodity and transferred to many hands. There were also allegations of forgery, impersonation etc. There have been allegations of sale of similar children to various other parties in the past by some of the parties in this case. There are allegations that some of the parties to this case are involved in child trafficking and they are selling the children for consideration. From the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties, in this case, it could be understood that the child was not given in adoption to anybody out of love and affection in the larger interest of the child. The child was obviously sold for consideration under the guise of adoption. From the narration of the facts and the allegations, we apprehend, in Dindigul District child trafficking must be prevalent. This matter requires thorough investigation. 36. We are hopeful that the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, will take effective steps to curb the child trafficking in Dindigul District and make further endeavour to find out as to whether any other child had been sold for consideration. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, as directed by this Court, has filed a final status report on 29.01.2013, narrating the proposals to curtail the menace of child trafficking in this district, which are as follows:- "3. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, as directed by this Court, has filed a final status report on 29.01.2013, narrating the proposals to curtail the menace of child trafficking in this district, which are as follows:- "3. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner and his wife one Mariammal, the respondents 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and one Rukumani, the mother of Respondent-6, were involved in the child trafficking in one way or other. It is further submitted that Respondents-11 and 12 were also committed the offence of cheating by personation. It is also submitted that the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ohm Prakash and the then Inspector of Police, Ravi, of Palani Town Police Station were not taken appropriate legal action, when the issue of child trafficking was reported. 4. It is respectfully submitted that legal action may be initiated under the Provisions of section 17 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, against the petitioner and his wife Mariammal and Respondents 3 to 12 and one Rukumani, the mother of Respondent-6 for their involvement in the child trafficking in one way or other. It is further submitted that Respondents 11 and 12 may also be prosecuted under the provisions of section 419 of IPC and Respondent -10, may be prosecuted under the provisions of section 419 IPC, r/w 109 IPC., for their action of cheating by personation and abetment for personation. 5. It is also submitted that disciplinary action may be taken against Om Prakash, the then SI of Police, Ravi, the then Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for their failure in not taking appropriate legal action, when the issue of child trafficking was reported to them. 6. It is respectfully submitted that Anti Human Trafficking unit headed by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station is functioning in this district. The main object of this unit is to deal with the affairs of trafficking of women and children. In all the police stations, one police personnel had been designated as the Child Welfare Officer under the provisions of section 63 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, who will handle the juveniles. 7. A toll free telephone bearing number 1098 is also functioning in this district, to deal with the child related affairs. 8. In all the police stations, one police personnel had been designated as the Child Welfare Officer under the provisions of section 63 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, who will handle the juveniles. 7. A toll free telephone bearing number 1098 is also functioning in this district, to deal with the child related affairs. 8. It is respectfully submitted that the following actions may be taken to curtail the menace of child trafficking in this district. a) The police personnel in the Anti Human Trafficking Unit and the designated Child Welfare Officers in all the police stations in this district will be instructed to collect information about the prevalence of child trafficking and adoption of children in violation of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. b). The vulnerable areas of child trafficking in this district may be identified by collection of information, c). The awareness programmes on child trafficking, and it's consequences and the procedures for legal adoption of children will be conducted in co-ordination with the NGOs and other concerned government departments, in the vulnerable areas and other parts of this district. d). The activities of the fertility centers functioning in the hospitals of this district and it's staff such as mid-wives and menials will be closely watched, e). The information will be collected, particularly on those children who are found missing from their parents after their birth, by perusing the registration of birth records for a period of two years. Information will also be collected on those children who are said to be adopted by the parents and the entire affairs relating thereto will thoroughly be verified. f). Action will be taken on the information provided by various committees, which constituted on child related affairs in this district by virtue of statues and rules. 9. It is also respectfully submitted that enquiry is being conducted with the persons concerned, to find out as to whether the respondent -No.4, had sold away four children previously, and also whether Raja, an Advocate of Palani had connection with respondent No.4, Pandiammal and involved in this affairs, if any. 10. It is respectfully submitted that respondent -5, has been produced before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mylapore, Chennai, on 28.01.2013 for recording his voice. 10. It is respectfully submitted that respondent -5, has been produced before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mylapore, Chennai, on 28.01.2013 for recording his voice. However, the petitioner was not appeared for recording his control voice samples, as the petitioner himself had stated that he was not well. Forensic Voice analysis will be carried out only after recording control voice samples of the petitioner Balamurugan." 37. The District Collector, Dindigul, in his counter, dated 28.01.2013, inter alia, has stated that in Dindigul District, to achieve overall development of the children in need, Ministry of Women and Child Development have formulated a scheme, known as "Integrated Child Protection Scheme. Under the said scheme, "District Child Protection Unit" in every district has to be constituted. In Dindigul District, a District Child Protection Unit has been functioning from 13th August 2012. To recommend and monitor the implementation of child protection services at block level, a Block Level Child Protection Committee has to be constituted. The functioning and the findings of the Village Level Watchdog Committee as well as the Block Level Child Protection Committee have to be monitored by the District Advisory Committee as its meeting headed by the District Collector. If the Committee functions properly, giving more attention on child trafficking related matters in addition to its routine works, the child trafficking at village level as well as Block Level may be minimized at certain extent. Special efforts have also been taken to strengthen the existing mechanism to monitor the child trafficking by using the services of the above said committees. 38. It is further stated that in addition to the above, those NGOs doing services in adoption are being strictly monitored by the District Social Welfare Officer. During the process of Adoption greater care has also be given both by the Child Welfare Committee and the Probation Officer, Department of Social Officer. He has further assured that a separate powerful "Anti-human Trafficking Wing" has been formed at every station, which work has been monitored by the Superintendent of Police. He has further assured that the District Administration would take effective steps to eradicate child trafficking in Dindigul District. 39. He has further assured that a separate powerful "Anti-human Trafficking Wing" has been formed at every station, which work has been monitored by the Superintendent of Police. He has further assured that the District Administration would take effective steps to eradicate child trafficking in Dindigul District. 39. Having considered all the above facts and circumstances, we pass the following order:- i. We hold that the petitioner - K.Balamurugan and his wife -Mrs.Mariammal are the biological parents of the male child [Karthikeyan], who has been in the care and custody of the respondents 7 and 8 for more than a year. As per the settlement arrived at between the petitioner, his wife and the respondents 7 and 8 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench, the child shall continue to be in the custody of the respondents 7 and 8. As has been agreed upon by the parties, they are at liberty to complete all the legal formalities to make the adoption valid and effective as expeditiously as possible. ii. The District Collector, Dindigul District, shall take all necessary steps and endeavour to eradicate child trafficking in Dindigul District. iii. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, shall co-ordinate with the District Collector, Dindigul District, in such endeavour, as has been undertaken by him by an affidavit filed before this Court. iv. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, shall ensure investigation by a competent officer into the matters narrated above and to prosecute the culprits, who have been involved in child trafficking, impersonation, forgery and other offences, if any. v. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, shall act as per his undertakings made in his status report, dated 29.01.2013, scrupulously. 40. With this, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of. 41. Before parting with this case, we would like to mention that but for the appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District before this Court and his subsequent personal efforts to enquire into various allegations made by the parties before this Court, we apprehend, the detenu would not have been rescued. We find that Mr.T.Jeyachandran, Superintendent of Police, has done an excellent job in this matter, in quick succession, responding to the directions issued by this Court, and therefore, he deserves our appreciation. Mr.S.Balraj, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, has assisted the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, effectively, and therefore, he also deserves our appreciation. We find that Mr.T.Jeyachandran, Superintendent of Police, has done an excellent job in this matter, in quick succession, responding to the directions issued by this Court, and therefore, he deserves our appreciation. Mr.S.Balraj, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, has assisted the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, effectively, and therefore, he also deserves our appreciation. So, we place on record our deep appreciation for the excellent work done by Mr.T.Jeyachandran, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Mr.S.Balraj, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.