HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No. 4072 of 2011 DATED: 21.02.2011 Between: Lalith Devi .. Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P 2. The Commissioner of Police 3. Station House Officer 4. Shanti Kumar .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner is the wife of the alleged detenue. She asserted that the detenue was working for 4th respondent, who is dealing in articles of gold, silver, diamonds, etc. While so, she states that on 11.02.2011, the 4th respondent sent her husband on business to handover gold, diamond and silver weighing 5 kilograms to a party in Bombay. While her husband was on his way to Bombay, he got down the bus near Pune leaving his bag, on his seat to have a cup of tea, and when he came back he found the bag torn and the silver missing. Then, her husband and the bus staff, along with co-passengers reported the matter at a nearby Police Station in Maharastra. She further states that later, the 4th respondent handed over to the police the gold, diamonds and other articles, except the silver. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 4th respondent informed her that he detained her husband on the allegation that her husband stole the silver. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner’s husband and set him free. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged detenue is not responsible for the missing of the silver. However, he stated that the husband of the petitioner has returned to his house today, and he was illegally detained by the 4th respondent, and in spite of the compliant lodged by the detenue, the police concerned have neither registered any case nor taken any action against the 4th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s husband, who is the alleged detenue, is said to have returned home and is not under any illegal detention, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner is so aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent, it is left open to her to lodge a complaint before the police concerned besides filing a private compliant before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction for necessary action. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 21st February, 2011 ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J bcj