KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today dismissed a RM100 million suit by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi against the inspector-general of police (IGP) and the government for allegedly failing to arrest her ex-husband and return her daughter, who he abducted.
In his ruling, judicial commissioner Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan stated that the police had used all available resources to locate the wanted man.
Indira's daughter Prasana Diksa was snatched from her 15 years ago and is believed to be with her ex-husband, K. Pathmanathan.
The court said in order for the plaintiff, (Indira Gandhi) to succeed in the tort of nonfeasance, she must demonstrate the existence of malice or bad faith.
"It is impossible for me to conclude that the IGP and police did not attempt to locate Patmanathan.
"Furthermore, this is certainly not a scenario in which Patmanathan was roaming around Kuala Lumpur or any other area in the presence of the police, without the police taking any action despite noticing his appearance.
"If this were the case, I would have viewed that factor in favour of the plaintiff.
"However, the facts before me indicate that Patmanathan's whereabouts were unknown. Evidence further suggests that he was in Thailand at some point in time," he said.
Mohzanuddin said the evidence suggested that all the efforts made by the IGP and police were not indicative of any neglect of their duties.
"Based on the evidence available to me, I conclude that the IGP and police exercised their duties in the manner they considered to be most appropriate.
"The manner in which they conducted their investigation is within their wide discretion, and I am in no position to second-guess them.
"Essentially, what matters to me is that there is evidence that an investigation has been conducted and is still in progress," he said, adding that neither the IGP nor the police had any ill intention in this matter.
Indira filed the suit on Oct 28, 2020, by naming former IGP Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador, the Royal Malaysia Police, Home Ministry, and the government as the first, second, third, and fourth defendants, respectively.
In her statement of claim, Indira accused the first defendant (Hamid) of committing negligence by failing to execute a warrant issued by the Federal Court eight years ago.
She claimed that Hamid had knowingly, recklessly and maliciously failed to take all necessary steps to apprehend Pathmanathan, now known as Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, and retrieve Prasana.
She claimed that the second, third, and fourth defendants were vicariously liable for the first defendant's act of nonfeasance.
It was reported that Pathmanathan took Prasana away after unilaterally converting all of their three children to Islam in 2009.
Prasana was just 11 months old at the time.
On Jan 29, 2018, the Federal Court ruled that the unilateral conversion of their three children by Riduan, a Muslim convert, as null and void.
In a 99-page judgment read out by Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zainun Ali, the court ruled that the consent of both parents was needed to convert a minor.