THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.1632 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Habeas us directing the respondents to produce the petitioner’s son me Eluri Swamy Vikas before this Court. 3. It appears, the son of the petitioner, when he was aged about 13 years, was found missing from 16.09.2005, and, of course, there is other background also in the shape of family disputes between the parents of the missing boy. Since then, he could not be traced by the Police, despite the complaint being lodged with the Police. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, submits that the Police had made several attempts and in that process, they could trace the suspect, who is arrayed as fourth respondent in this writ petition, and basing on the information revealed from him, the Section of law was altered to that of 365 I.P.C., from the “boy missing” case and a case in Crime No.93 of 2005 was registered. She further submits that after thorough investigation, since the boy could not be traced, the Police filed a final report before the Magistrate concerned and that, at this stage, it is highly difficult to trace the missing boy, particularly, a boy aged 13 years, when he was found missing, after five years. 5. We agree with the said submission of the learned tant Government Pleader that it is difficult to trace the ng boy, who was aged 13 years as on the date of missing, ive years. 6. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that Crime No.93 of 2005, registered under Section 365 I.P.C., wherein the fourth respondent was involved, is still pending. It further appears from the record that another complaint was also lodged and the same was referred to the Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and it was registered as a case in Crime No.99 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 506 I.P.C., against the fourth respondent. In view of the investigation in that regard, basing on the above mentioned complaints, it is not proper for this Court to issue any further directions, more particularly to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, as sought for. Needless to mention that the investigation would go on in connection with the cases pending and the respondents-Police shall make all efforts to trace the missing son of the petitioner. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed. ever, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY 18th February, 2010 dr