IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17282 of 2008 Between: Manukonda Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Raja Rao, R/o. D.No. 14-8-8, Beside Womens College Ground, Royapeta, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Sri. Krupanandam, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapuram Town Police Station Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 3 Yalla John R/o. Raju R/o.Ward No.30, Stationpeta, Narsapuram, West Godavari 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondent 1 and 2 to cause production of Ms. Sheeba and Investigate into the complaint given by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. AKA VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondetn No.2 : SRI B. DEVANAND The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17282 of 2008 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 for Home, appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce his daughter viz., Ms.Sheeba before this Court, who was illegally detained by the third respondent herein. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that one Mr. Yalla John, who is the third respondent herein, has harassed and teased his daughter viz., Ms.Sheeba, who was studying X Class in J.Sikila School in April, 2007 asking her to marry him. Thereupon, he along with his relatives admonished the third respondent and told him not to harass his daughter. In view of the harassment by the third respondent and his relatives, his daughter was admitted in Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Visakhapatnam, in June, 2007. Since the activity of harassment was not stopped by the third respondent, a complaint was lodged before the Narsapuram Town Police Station, the second respondent herein. Since no action has been taken by the second respondent, he reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, the ﬁrst respondent herein, and subsequently the second respondent had handed over the custody of his daughter to him. 4. While so, the third respondent, in connivance with the second respondent and some other Constables working under him, once again kidnapped his daughter on 01-07-2008. Immediately he gave a complaint to the second respondent to enquire into the matter. Since no action has been initiated by the second respondent, he reported the matter to the ﬁrst respondent, who inturn transferred and handed over the case to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapuram Rural, for investigation and necessary action. So far, none of the accused persons were apprehended and no investigation was conducted, nor the custody of his daughter was handed over to him. Hence the present writ petition. 5. A counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent-Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru, denying all the material allegations levelled against the second respondent herein. It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner, who is the alleged detenu, is a minor and basing on the complaint made by the petitioner on 30-06-2007, a case in Crime No.103 of 2007 for the oﬀence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.”) was registered on 30-06-2007 and investigation was taken up by the Station House Oﬃcer, Narsapur Town Police Station. The investigating oﬃcer visited the scene of oﬀence and examined the mother of the alleged detenu, who corroborated with the contents of the F.I.R. The investigating oﬃcer also examined the people of the locality, who stated that they have seen the girl going along with the boy, who is no other than the third respondent herein, on a motor cycle. While so, the alleged detenu along with the third respondent herein approached Narsapur Town Police Station on 02-07-2007 and the statement of the alleged detenu under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police, wherein she stated that she left the house along with the third respondent voluntarily and she was waiting for him to come and take her from her house. It is also stated that subsequently, on requisition, the statement of the alleged detenu under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was also recorded by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. It appears that the petitioner refused to take his daughter as she was found in the company of the third respondent and later the third respondent was arrested as he had kidnapped the minor girl, who was in the lawful custody of her father. Later, on 02- 08-2007, the father of the alleged detenu ﬁled a petition before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, requesting to hand over the alleged detenu to him and the said petition was allowed. Accordingly, the custody of the alleged detenu was handed over to the petitioner. 6. While so, again the petitioner approached the Town Police Station, Narsapur, on 02-07-2008 stating that his daughter was again kidnapped by the third respondent. Thereupon a case in Crime No.134 of 2008 for the oﬀence punishable under Section 448 and 366 I.P.C., was registered and once again the whole exercise of examination of the petitioner and the alleged detenu etc., had taken place. 7. As per the directions of this Court, the girl Ms. Sheeba is present before this Court today along with the petitioner and her uncle (co-brother of the petitioner) viz., Sri S. Sri Venkatesh, Advocate. The third respondent is also present before this Court. 8. Upon being questioned by this Court in the open Court, the girl stated that she is not at all willing to join her father, who is the petitioner herein. She also stated that she made several complaints as regards the harassment and physical torture at the hands of her father and that she wants to remain in the company of the third respondent only. 9. Admittedly, since the alleged detenu is a minor and just completed her X Class, we cannot give her custody to the third respondent. That apart, such custody of the alleged detenu to the third respondent is impermissible under law and moreover, there was no marriage performed between the alleged detenu and the third respondent. But, since the alleged detenu has been stoutly refusing to stay with her father, we deem it appropriate to make alternative arrangement for the safe custody of the alleged detenu till she attains majority. 10. In this context, it is to be seen that the alleged detenu has been prosecuting her Intermediate Course in Sri Chaitanya Junior College at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, we feel it expedient to see that the girl is admitted in a College run by the same management of Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, at Hyderabad. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, is instructed to verify as to whether a seat can be allotted to the alleged detenu to prosecute Intermediate Bi.P.C., course in Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, at Hyderabad, or in any other Educational Institution with good standards, because the alleged detenu is academically bright, all through, with C.B.S.E. syllabus. 11. The responsibility of joining the alleged detenu in a good Educational Institution, preferably in Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions at Hyderabad, has been entrusted to and taken up by the uncle of the alleged detenu viz., Sri S. Sri Venkatesh, who is an Advocate by profession, practicing at Hyderabad and residing at H.No.1-4-880/27, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad (Cell: 98480 29919; Phone: 6999 6425). 12. The alleged detenu shall stay with the said S. Sri Venkatesh, Advocate, till she is admitted in a suitable Educational Institution, preferably Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions at Hyderabad, and the custody of the alleged detenu shall be with the said Sri S. Sri Venkatesh, Advocate, during the period when the Hostel of the Institution, where she gets admission, is closed. The said Sri S. Sri Venkatesh also assured this Court that he will take all such necessary steps regarding the safety of the alleged detenu, including her educational prospects, and also oﬀered to bear the expenditure towards college fee and other incidental expenditure, like clothing etc. He also assured that he will see the girl in all reasonable comforts. 13. The said Sri S. Sri Venkatesh is directed not to allow either the third respondent or the father of the alleged detenu or any other relatives from the side of the father of the alleged detenu, because the alleged detenu is very much apprehensive of everyone, who are closely related to her father. 14. The Educational Institution, wherever the alleged detenu gets admission, shall not entertain any mode of correspondence, either telephonically or by letters or by personal visits, by the third respondent herein. Any attempt made by the third respondent to meet the alleged detenu or to talk to her has to be complained to the Police Station concerned and upon such complaint being received by the Hostel authorities belonging to the Educational Institution, appropriate action shall be initiated against the third respondent or against any other person, who interferes with the peaceful life of the alleged detenu till she completes her studies. 15. The above arrangement is being made since it is our responsibility to see that a young girl with brilliant academic background, all through, shall not be exposed to these kinds of disturbances. It is only our wish to see the welfare of the alleged detenu with bright future, free from all kinds of disturbances, till she attains the majority. 16. It is also made clear that in case of any discomfort, the alleged detenu is at liberty to call the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, who is available at Phone Nos: 2344 6704 (O); 2344 2437 (R); and Cell No: 94406 21436. 17. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25-08-2008 Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. Two CCs to the Advocate General, Government of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 3. Two C.D. copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17282 of 2008 25-08-2008 (Msr)