KUALA LUMPUR (June 22): The High Court has fixed July 16 for a decision on whether to strike out a lawsuit brought by kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi over the failure by police to locate and return her daughter who was allegedly abducted by her former husband.
Indira’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan said the defendants — the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Royal Malaysia Police, the Home Ministry and the government — have applied for the case to be struck out on the grounds that there is no substance to the suit.
Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali fixed the date during a virtual hearing today. Besides the striking out application, the judge will also decide on an interrogatory order sought by Indira.
An interrogatory is when the plaintiff poses questions to the defendants in writing to ensure that the trial proceeds faster.
Rajesh informed reporters via a Zoom meeting that the defendants have yet to reply to questions posed by Indira, and hence she is seeking an order from the court to compel them to answer the questions.
Senior federal counsel Safiyyah Omar and Andi Razalijaya appeared for the defendants during today’s online proceedings.
Last October, Indira, 45, sued the defendants over their alleged failure to locate and return her 12-year-old missing child, Prasana Diksa.
In her statement of claim, Indira said the IGP had refused to adhere to a committal order that required her former husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, 51, to be committed to prison until Prasana is delivered to her.
She also accused police of ignoring a recovery order that required the court bailiff and police to conduct a search, retrieve and return Prasana from Riduan to Indira.
Indira claimed the IGP failed to adhere to both orders on the basis that he was faced with two conflicting orders, namely an order by the Perak Syariah High Court that granted custody of the couple’s three children to Riduan and an order by the Ipoh High Court that granted custody to Indira.
She claimed the IGP had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office by failing to enforce the orders.
Indira claimed the defendants’ conduct had directly or indirectly caused and extended the separation between her and her child and enabled Riduan to abscond.
She claimed to have suffered pain and anxiety as a result of constant worry over the safety and well-being of Prasana.
Indira and Riduan, or his birth name K Patmanathan, were married in1993.
