HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24910 of 2011 Dated: 04-11-2011 Between: Malempati Narayanamma …Petitioner AND Station House Officer, Palvoncha Town Police Station, Palvoncha, Khammam District And others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24910 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Mother of Lakshmi Chaitanya-alleged detenue filed this writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the first respondent to produce her daughter before this Court, who is allegedly in illegal custody of respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, herself and her family members including the alleged detenue went to Shiridi to offer prayers on 22.12.2010 and while they were returning from Shiridi on 30.12.2010, at 3.00 p.m. at Poorna Railway Station, Maharashtra State, the second respondent forcibly took away the alleged detenue without her knowledge. Later, petitioner lodged a complaint before the first respondent on 4.1.2011, but so far, police have not taken any action to secure the alleged detenue. It is alleged inter alia, the second respondent is a married person, that he is a habitual offender and that he is having illegal contacts with several ladies. In the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector, Palvoncha Police Station, first respondent herein, it is stated upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner a case in Crime No.2 of 2011 was registered under the head ‘Woman missing’. While the investigation is in progress, the alleged detenue herself approached the first respondent on 18.4.2011 and gave a statement stating that she is a major, aged 28 years, she herself voluntarily left the company of her parents on 31.12.2010 while returning from Shiridi, went to Kolkatha and stayed there in a Women’s hostel. On the same day, the first respondent produced the alleged detenue before II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem and the learned Magistrate set the alleged detenue at liberty by passing the following order: “The victim girl by name M.Lakshmi Chaitanya produced before me as she is major and she stated she wants to live independently, she is set at liberty.” Later, the alleged detenue filed WPMP.No.34752 of 2011 and appeared before this Court. On examining the alleged detenue and mother of the petitioner, this Court came to an opinion that the statements given by the alleged detenue and the respondents 2 and 3 are not true and felt that a thorough enquiry is required to be conducted in the matter and accordingly directed the alleged detenue to be produced before the Superintendent, State Home, Directorate Complex, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad, who in turn, shall admit her in the State Home and with a further direction to the police to file a further detailed report in the matter. Meanwhile, alleged detenue filed WPMP.No.35592 of 2011 requesting this Court to release her from the State Home and set her at liberty. She stated therein that her mother- petitioner herein was pressurizing her to play according to her tunes and therefore, she refused and left the house and staying outside the house according to her own wish and will and that the petitioner is creating the mental torture to her by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, and that she is also suffering with ill-health because of her staying at the State Home. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the alleged detenue. Today, once again, we have examined the alleged detenue in the Court. She denied all the averments made by the petitioner including the allegation of kidnap by the second respondent and she blindly refused to go along with her parents and wants to lead her own independent life she being major and that the police should not make any further investigation into the matter as any further investigation will affect her future. She being a major and M.C.A. graduate can lead her own life according to her wish. She stated to be working in a private firm but refused to disclose the same for her safety as she apprehends that her parents will harass her by frequently visiting at her place of work. She specifically stated that the second respondent is no way responsible for her leaving the parents and that he is not at all blackmailing her as alleged by the petitioner. Having regard to the assertion made by the alleged detenue, we see no merits in the allegations made by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As the alleged detenue is a major, it is not necessary to lodge her at State Home, and therefore, the first respondent is directed to set the alleged detenue at liberty forth with. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 04, 2011 (B/o)TSR