IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5727 of 2009 Between: Pennada Sri Devi W/o. Pennada Ramesh Naidu D/o. Gubbala Satyanarayana R/o. S. Yanam Village, Uppalaguptam (M) East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Secrtariat Buildings Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Station House Officer Uppalaguptam Police Station Uppalaguptam, E.G. District. 5 Pennada Ramesh Naidu S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Karrivani Ravu. Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. District. 6 Pennada Satyanarayana S/o. Not known R/o. Karrivani Ravu. Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. District. 7 Pennada Papamma W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Karrivani Ravu. Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. District. 8 Pennada Thataji S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Karrivani Ravu. Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. District. 9 Pennada Krishnaveni W/o. Pennada Thataji R/o. Karrivani Ravu. Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. District. 10 Aerigela Venkateswara Rao S/o. Not known Vadapalem Village, Kothapeta Madnal, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents No. 2 to 4 to produce petitioners husband namely Pennada Rajesh Naidu i.e, 5th Respondent before this Hon'ble Court and handed over to petitioner who is the wife of 5th Respondent by giving police protection to her life and to pass such other or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA & KAMLA SEELAM B. Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5727 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and also learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6, 9 and 10. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to produce her husband viz., Pennada Ramesh Naidu, the fifth respondent herein, who is illegally detained by respondent Nos.6 to 10, before this Court and handover his custody to the petitioner. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition and as presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 to 10 have illegally detained her husband and trying to perform his marriage for second time. Therefore, she seeks interference of this Court by way of issuing Writ of Habeas Corpus. 4. Notices have been served on all the respondents, except the fifth respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, inasmuch as he was not available in the said address as per the endorsement on the postal acknowledgement. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam Police Station, East Godavari District, representing the 4th respondent herein, denying the averments and also bringing to the notice of this Court that a complaint, dated 17.3.2009, had already been lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos.6 to 10 and the same had been registered as Crime No.37 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Uppalaguptam Police Station. It is also interesting to note that a perusal of the said complaint, which is made part of the record, reveals that the petitioner gave the said complaint not only against respondent Nos.6 to 10, but also against the fifth respondent, who is her husband and basing on the said complaint, investigation is in progress. 6. From the above facts, it is obvious that the petitioner had already set the law into motion by way of lodging a complaint before the fourth respondent-police against respondent Nos.6 to 10 and also against the alleged detenu, who is her husband. The conduct of the petitioner in lodging a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C., and now filing this Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking production of her husband, who is allegedly in the custody of respondent Nos.6 to 10, is very peculiar and the reasons for such relief are indiscernible. 7. Even otherwise, the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by way of filing a complaint to the police or by invoking the remedy as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner had already availed of the former remedy and the investigation is in progress, filing of this writ petition, in our considered view, is totally obnoxious and abuse of the process of law. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 25-06-2009 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5727 of 2009 25-06-2009 (Msr)