KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — An application by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and three others to strike out a suit filed by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi over the Royal Malaysia Police’s (PDRM) failure to find and bring back her youngest daughter, who is abducted by her Muslim convert ex-husband will be heard this June 22.
Indira’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, informed the date when contacted by reporters after the case management, which was conducted online before High Court deputy registrar Idamasliza Maarof today.
He said the court would also hear the same day his client’s interrogatory application for the IGP to give written answers to 48 questions regarding the investigation on her ex-husband.
“Parties are required to file the written submission for both applications on March 23 and the reply on April 6,” he added.
On January 11 last year, Indira, 46, filed an interrogatory application for a court order to compel the IGP to answer the 48 questions in writing, through an affidavit, in accordance with Rule 26 of the Rules of Court 2012.
In the application, Indira, among others, requested the IGP to answer questions pertaining to the investigation, including the location of her ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah Muhammad Riduan, formerly known as K. Patmanathan, who is alleged to be in southern Thailand.
She named the IGP, PDRM, Home Ministry and the Government of Malaysia, as defendant in the suit filed in October last year.
In her statement of claim, Indira claimed that the IGP had deliberately and negligently ignored the mandamus order from the Federal Court and failed to investigate or take appropriate action to return her daughter, Prasana Diksa, to her.
She claimed that all the defendants had played their roles in making decisions or ordering the PDRM to execute the committal warrant against Muhammad Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.
She claimed that the behaviour of all the defendants had directly caused her separation from her youngest daughter, who is now 12, to continue until today and that their behaviour had also caused Mohd Riduan to flee.
She is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that the first defendant had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office, and the second, third and fourth defendants were also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the first defendant. — Bernama
