JUDGMENT : K. Abraham Mathew, J. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second petitioner. The wife of the latter is aged 24. He is employed at Thiruvananthapuram. About 1= months ago his wife started working with a private firm in Thiruvananthapuram. At 1 in the afternoon on 19.9.2016 he dropped her at K.S.R.T.C bus stand at Thiruvananthapuram, from where she left in a bus for Pala. Thereafter, she was missing. On the same day at 10.30 in the night he informed the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, about it. But the latter sent back the former with a direction to meet him again the next morning. On the next day by about noon the 4th respondent recorded the second petitioner's statement and registered a case. On 21.9.2016 the police got information that the 5th respondent had abducted the second petitioner's wife. On the next day, the police informed him that they had got information about the whereabouts of his wife and instructed him to be available at Thiruvananthapuram. On 23.9.2016 the 4th respondent asked him not to go to the Police Station unless he was summoned. On 23.9.2016 by 12 noon when the petitioner met the 4th respondent at the Police Station, the latter told him that one lady advocate had assured him that the missing woman would be produced before the police before 4 in the evening. He was asked to wait at his residence. At about 3 p.m he got the information that one woman appeared before the Judicial Magistrate concerned along with an advocate and the learned Magistrate recorded her statement. The petitioners rushed to the court only to learn that the woman and the lady advocate had left. The woman told the Magistrate that she had eloped with the 5th respondent, who was a colleague of hers. At about 3.45 p.m the second petitioner was summoned to the police station as the police wanted to close his complaint. The petitioners alleged that the missing person was illegally detained by the 5th respondent with the assistance of respondents 6 to 8. The petitioners prayed that a writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued commanding respondents 1 to 4 police officers to produce the missing woman before this court. 2. The petitioners alleged that the missing person was illegally detained by the 5th respondent with the assistance of respondents 6 to 8. The petitioners prayed that a writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued commanding respondents 1 to 4 police officers to produce the missing woman before this court. 2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 17.11.2016, it was reported that the missing woman had already reached the house of the first petitioner and the writ petition might be closed. We would have disposed of the Writ Petition immediately but for certain reasons which we shall presently mention. 3. As stated earlier, serious allegations were raised against the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. It is even stated that the part of the incident subsequent to the filing of the complaint was a drama enacted by the police. On 17.10.2016 the second respondent, District Police Chief, filed a report, in which he claims that he conducted an enquiry into the conduct of the 4th respondent. But the report is silent about the allegations against the 4th respondent. In his Annexure R2(h) statement the 4th respondent has admitted that at about 11 p.m on 19.9.2016 the second petitioner gave him in writing the information that his wife was missing and that he recorded the statement of the latter only on the next day. It is inspite of this admission the District Police Chief had the audacity to tell this court that there was no 'fault or lapse' on the part of the Sub Inspector. It is left to our imagination to conjure up the nature of the enquiry conducted by the District Police Chief. The report is perfunctory in nature and it is not one that is expected of a responsible police officer like him. We are compelled to take the view that he has maintained silence about the allegations against the 4th respondent because he knew that they are not false. There are other reasons also for us to make this observation. 4. We have perused the Police Diary relating to the case. In the entries which are shown to have been made on 20th and 21st of September 2016 there is a correction in the dates, which indicates that the diary was not prepared in the ordinary course. There are other reasons also for us to make this observation. 4. We have perused the Police Diary relating to the case. In the entries which are shown to have been made on 20th and 21st of September 2016 there is a correction in the dates, which indicates that the diary was not prepared in the ordinary course. In the information given by the second petitioner to the police on the basis of which the case was registered it was specifically stated that the missing woman had contacts with the 5th respondent and the mobile phone of the latter remained switched off after she was found missing. In the diary it is recorded that the 4th respondent got information 'from the residence' of the 5th respondent that he had gone on tour and his mobile phone remained switched off. Prima facie, this cannot be accepted. It is not disclosed who gave him the information. He is not seen to have recorded the statement of any member of the 5th respondent's family. So what is recorded in the Case Diary is only an eye wash. The diary shows that on 21.9.2016 the 4th respondent recorded the statements of four persons. But the date is not seen written in any of these statements. 5. The above suspicious circumstances revealed from the entries in the diary also compel us to believe that the allegations against the 4th respondent cannot be false. 6. When a Station House Officer receives information that a person is missing, the procedure to be followed by him is prescribed in section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which is extracted below: "57. Police to attempt to locate missing persons-(1) Whenever a Station House Officer receives any information from which he reasonably suspects that any person is missing and there are circumstances to be believe that- (a) such person is in danger or not under the protection of lawful guardianship, or (b) such person may be subjected to some dangerous offence; or (c) such person is absconding himself to prevent someone from implementing a lawful right declared by any Court, such officer shall register the information in a manner similar to the procedure prescribed for a cognizable offence and take immediate action to locate the missing person. (2) During such enquiries such officer or any officer deputed by him may examine and record the statement of any witness and search any place. (3) All persons shall answer truthfully to any question by a Police Officer enquiring this matter and a copy of such statement recorded by that officer shall be given to the witness and after getting such copy, the witness shall sign and acknowledge that such copy has been received. (4) All searches under this section shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974). (5) The missing person if found on enquiry shall forthwith be handed over to the responsible guardian or produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. (6) Where the person so produced is a woman or a child the Magistrate shall take such steps as are needed to safeguard the privacy and interest of that person." 7. The 4th respondent registered a case on 20.9.2016. Though he was informed about the incident on 19.9.2016, he did not even record the statement of the second petitioner on that day. Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act casts a duty on the Station House Officer to register the information given to him and to take immediate action to locate the missing person. The section mandates that information shall be recorded in a manner similar to the procedure prescribed for a cognizable offence. Though the information given by a person is not a statement contemplated by section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Station House Officer is not expected to prepare a report envisaged by section 157 of Code, he is bound to make a report in view of the provisions contained in section 57(1) of the Kerala Police Act. A situation like the present one demands prompt action on the part of the police officer. It is his statutory duty to record the information and register a case and take immediate action to locate the missing person. 8. It cannot be gainsaid that the police had prior information about the proposed appearance of the missing person before the Magistrate. She appeared before the Magistrate on the 3rd day (23.9.2016) of the registration of the case. It is his statutory duty to record the information and register a case and take immediate action to locate the missing person. 8. It cannot be gainsaid that the police had prior information about the proposed appearance of the missing person before the Magistrate. She appeared before the Magistrate on the 3rd day (23.9.2016) of the registration of the case. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the person who appeared before him and on its basis he set her at liberty as he was satisfied that she was not illegally detained by anyone and that she left the company of the second petitioner on her own. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that the Magistrate should not have recorded her statement before her identity was ascertained, for which he should have got the assistance of the Investigating Officer. 9. Whether under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate can record the statement of a witness who appears before him in the course of investigation of a case came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jogendra Nahak and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1999 SC 2565 . The court made the following observation: "...........................if door is opened to such persons to get in and if the magistrates are put under the obligation to record their statements, then too many persons sponsored by culprits might throng before the portals of the magistrate Courts for the purpose of creating record in advance for the purpose of helping the culprits. In the present case, one of the arguments advanced by accused for grant of bail to them was based on the statements of the four appellants recorded by the magistrate under section 164 of the Code. It is not part of the investigation to open up such a vista nor can such step be deemed necessary for the administration of justice". 10. The above observation of the Supreme Court in Jogendra Nahak's case is squarely applicable when a person claiming to be the missing person in respect of whom a case has been registered under section 57 of the Kerala Police Act appears before him in the course of the enquiry conducted by the police. 11. The Magistrate should be conscious of the risks involved in recording statement of such a person. 11. The Magistrate should be conscious of the risks involved in recording statement of such a person. There is no means for him to ascertain the identity of the person or the genuineness of the documents that may be produced by her/him. The probability of impersonation or of the person who allegedly kept her in illegal detention threatening her/him into giving a statement favourable to him and thereafter producing her/him before the Magistrate cannot be ruled out. When such a person appears before the Magistrate, he shall immediately give notice to the Investigating Officer, who shall without delay ascertain her/his identity and the circumstances under which she/he happened to appear before the court. He shall ask the missing person about the circumstances in which she/he happened to leave the place from which she/he was reportedly missing, the persons with whom she/he came into contact, the places she/he visited or at which she/he stayed and the transactions in which she/he was involved till she/he appeared before him. It is the duty of the Magistrate to bring out the facts which are necessary to know whether she/he was abused by anyone or whether any offence was committed in respect of her/him. If she/he is a minor or person under other disability, the Magistrate shall get her/him examined by a medical officer with the consent of her/his guardian. 12. Since the failure of the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, to discharge his statutory duty – for which there is no justification - has caused injustice to the second petitioner, we think it proper to direct the former to pay the second petitioner Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand only) as compensation. The second respondent shall make arrangements to recover this amount from his salary payable for the months of December, 2016 and January, 2017 in two equal instalments and send it to this court. Now, it is not disputed before us that it was the wife of the second petitioner who appeared before the Magistrate and she has reached a place of safety. It is not at all necessary for us to issue any direction in this regard to respondents 1 to 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. As per order dated 27.10.2016 this court had directed the Registrar to call for the records in Crime No.1275 of 2016 of Thampanoor Police Station from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram by special messenger. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. As per order dated 27.10.2016 this court had directed the Registrar to call for the records in Crime No.1275 of 2016 of Thampanoor Police Station from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram by special messenger. We do not find the records so called for, in the proceedings of this case. If the records have been received, incorporate the same. If not call for the records forthwith and incorporate the same. We further notice that, time was granted to the petitioner for filing an affidavit after perusing the report of the Commissioner of Police. However, no such affidavit is before us. Learned senior counsel submitted that an affidavit has been filed. Verify. The Government Pleader shall see to it that the case diary in Crime No.1275 of 2016 is also produced before us. Post on 17.11.2016.