THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25627 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The wife of the alleged detenu-Loka Raja Babu invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce her husband before this Court. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner was adopted by Loka Chandra Rao and on his death, the cousins and other relatives of her husband i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 12 herein demanded her husband to share the land of her father-in-law and also threatened him. It is further stated that since her husband is missing, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 17.08.2011 before the third respondent-Police Station; that on reducing the complaint into crime, the petitioner was called to the police station on 18.08.2011, and on which date, the petitioner along with her daughter went to the police station at 8 O’clock in the morning and waited upto 9 O’clock in the night, but the police did not evince any interest in the matter and that she is suspecting that respondent Nos.4 to 12 might have detained her husband. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Police Station, East Godavari District-third respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that on 13.08.2011, Loka Nagadurga and L.Durga Prasad of N.S.Venkatanagaram, Tuni Mandal, lodged a complaint with Tuni Rural Police Station stating that their father’s foster father (grand father) died recently and after his death, one Loka Nookaraju and others trespassed into their land and obstructed their cultivation, and therefore, they requested to take necessary action against them and that as the dispute was civil in nature, he advised them to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate remedies. It is also stated that on 19.08.2011, the petitioner approached Tuni Rural Police Station and submitted a compliant stating that her husband (alleged detenu) left the house on 02.08.2011 at 8.30 a.m stating that he is going to temple, but did not return home though 17 days have elapsed; that she gave the descriptive particulars and furnished a photograph of her husband and that based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.117 of 2011 under the head “Man Missing” was registered and investigation is take up. It is further stated that respondent Nos.4 to 12 were also examined during the course of investigation; that Radio message, look out notice etc., have been issued by the police to trace the missing person and that investigation is still going on and they are making efforts to trace the alleged detenu. Even according to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, she is only suspecting about the role of respondent Nos.4 to 12 in missing of her husband. The said suspects were examined by the police and their statements were also recorded. In view of the same, and since the husband of the petitioner is not in illegal detention, as alleged by the petitioner, and a crime has already been registered under the head “Man Missing” and the police are making efforts to trace him, issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus, as prayed for by the petitioner, does not arise, except directing the respondents-police to complete the investigation within a reasonable time and file a report by marking a copy to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. A.GOPAL REDDY, J R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 02.11.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week B/o va