IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23449 of 2005 Between: Kamasani Iragam Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy Galiveedu Mandal, Cuddapah DIstrict, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Station HOuse Officer, Galiveedu P.S. Cuddapah District, 2 Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, 3 Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, 4 State of A.P. , rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, .....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 to issue an order, direction or writ, mroe particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the inaction of respondents in not tracing the where abouts of the petitioner's daughter Ramadevi even after nearly one year, and their general failure to curb trafficking in girls and women in the state, is an unlawful and arbitrary act of serious dereliction of duty, and further direct the respondents to expeditiously take all necessary steps to trace the where abouts of the petitioners' daughter and unravel and curb the crime of trafficking in girls and women in the state by Prosecuting the guilty, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble COurt deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.23449 of 2005 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in tracing whereabouts of the daughter of the petitioner by name Rama Devi as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner was missing from 04- 11-2004. It is claimed that she was about 12 years old and that she ran away from home since the petitioner had scolded her for not being serious about her studies. On an intimation given to the Galiveedu P.S., a case of girl missing was registered. Thereafter, in April-2005 the petitioner received intimation from the Markepet Police Station, Secunderabad stating that the petitioner’s daughter was found murdered and the petitioner was asked to come down to Hyderabad. When the petitioner went to the Police Station on 04-04-2005 he found the dead body of an unidentified woman. A bus pass, issued by the APSRTC in the name of petitioner’s daughter, was said to have been found near the dead body from which the police came to the conclusion that the deceased was the petitioner’s daughter. In the inquest report the deceased-woman was described as aged about 18 to 20 years and her height was recorded as 5’.4”. Since the petitioner’s daughter was only 12 year old and her height was 4 ½”, the petitioner refused to accept the deceased-woman as his daughter. However, ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner, the police closed the investigation in the girl-missing case. Subsequently, through reliable sources the petitioner received information that his daughter was in the custody of one Praveen Kumar. In the month of August the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Minister with a request to trace his daughter and the same was endorsed to the Police Commissioner. In spite of the same the police failed to make any further investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. In response to the rule nisi ordered, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Galiveedu P.S. filed a counter-affidavit stating that Cr.No.13 of 2005 was registered on 15-03-2005 under the head of “girl-missing” on a complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging that his daughter was missing. During the course of investigation, four(4) witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded which revealed that the petitioner’s daughter was a student of 8th Class and she was not regularly attending the School. The Investigation Officer gave wide publicity in the news papers furnishing the particulars of the missing girl and the same was also published through slides in Cinema Halls so as to get the clues. A special party team was also deputed to Bangalore for causing enquiry into the matter since it was found in the investigation that the missing girl Rama Devi along with another girl by name Laxmi Devi borrowed a sum of Rs.100/- from one Sriramulu saying that they would go to Bangalore. While the investigation was under progress, the C.I of Police, DCRB-9, Hyderabad informed that one girl was murdered in the jurisdiction of the Monda Market P.S and one identity card pertaining to Rama Chandra School in the name of Rama Devi was found by the side of the dead body. The same was informed to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was unable to identify the dead body, the Monda Market police took the blood sample and other particulars for conducting DNA test. The DNA report revealed that the blood samples of the parents of the missing girl were matching with the sample taken from the body of deceased. The Monda Market Police after completition of investigation in Cr.No.44 of 2005 which was registered on 04.04.2005 after finding the unidentified dead body within the jurisdiction of the said police station filed a charge-sheet before the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad along with all the original documents. From the contents of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is clear that the police took all necessary steps for tracing the missing daughter of the petitioner. Since admittedly the DNA report revealed that the blood samples of the petitioner and the deceased- unidentified woman were matching, the version of the respondents in the counter-affidavit cannot be disbelieved merely because the petitioner was unable to identify the dead body and that there were certain discrepancies in the descriptive particulars mentioned in the inquest report. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the respondents ought to have made further inquiry with regard to his missing daughter is untenable. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 13th FEBRUARY 2009 *TSNR