IGP, three others seek to strike out suit by Indira Gandhi

The suit was filed pursuant to her claims that PDRM failed to execute the committal warrant to arrest her ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah Muhammad Riduan, and bring back their 13-year-old daughter, who was abducted by the man, 12 years ago.

Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, representing Indira when contacted by Bernama, said the matter was informed to the court by senior federal counsel (SFC) Safiyyah Omar, acting on behalf of all the defendants, to High Court deputy registrar Idamasliza Maarof during the proceedings through the online system (e-Review ) today.

"The SFC also informed the court that the application was served to the plaintiff (Indira) today.

"The plaintiff's request for the IGP to answer 48 questions regarding the investigation on her ex-husband was also submitted to the first defendant (IGP) yesterday," said the lawyer, who also informed that further case management has been for Feb 19 via e-Review, also before Idamasliza.

On Jan 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, formerly known as K. Patmanathan, who is alleged to be in southern Thailand.

She named the Inspector-General of Police (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.