IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY 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. 14596 of 2008 Between: Kommu Bhushanam S/o.Pentaiah R/o.Alankanpet village, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District, AP (S.C.Madiga) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of AP., rep.by its Superintendent of Police Warangal District, AP 2 The Station House officer, Nekkonda Police Station, Nekkonda, Warangal District, AP 3 Kommu Venkanna, S/o.Ramulu R/o.Alankanpet village, Nekkonda Mandal Warangal District, AP .....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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus direct to produce the daughter of the petitioner i.e. Kumari Padma, aged 18 years, R/o.Alankanpet village,Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District AP before this Hon`ble court and set her liberty forthwith and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No.3 : ----- 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.14596 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, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to produce his daughter viz., Kumari Padma, aged about 18 years, who was allegedly kidnapped by one Kommu Venkanna, s/o. Ramulu, the third respondent herein, with the help of some others. It is further stated that he made some efforts with the relatives of the alleged kidnapper, but could not get any information about his missing daughter. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the second respondent police on 23-04-2008 and since the second respondent did not take any action, except registering the complaint as Crime No.63 of 2008, he submitted another complaint, dated 30-06-2008, to the first respondent requesting to enquire and handover the custody of his missing daughter. But, no action has been initiated by the police. 3. In pursuance of the notices issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekkonda Police Station, Warangal District, representing the second respondent herein, stating that on the complaint made by the petitioner on 23-04-2008, the same was registered as Crime No.63 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation, that during the course of investigation, he examined the complainant and recorded his statement, that he visited the village from where the girl was allegedly kidnapped and also examined the wife and children of the petitioner. It is also stated that he examined the villagers and came to know that the alleged detenu was not to be seen since 15-04-2008. But, nobody did speak about the kidnap alleged to have been made by the third respondent. It is further stated that a radio message was also flashed to all the Police Stations in the District and nearby Police Stations and a team of Police Constables was also constituted to trace the alleged detenu, which has visited Warangal, Kesamudram, Mahabubabad and the surrounding villages and made discrete enquiries about the alleged detenu, but in vain. Several other steps that have been taken were also detailed in the counter affidavit. 4. Apart from the above, it appears that a letter had been addressed by the alleged detenu to the Police Station, on 19-04-2008, stating that she left the home on her own with the third respondent in whom she was interested and with a request not to take any action against the third respondent. She also appended her Birth Certificate in order to show that she is a major. 5. As a matter of fact, the alleged detenu, being a major, is at liberty to move freely as per her will and wish. But, since a specific allegation has been made that she was kidnapped by the third respondent and a complaint was also lodged before the police, which was registered as Crime No.63 of 2008, we are of the view that suffice to close the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to intensify the investigation to trace the alleged detenu and as and when the alleged detenu is traced, the same may be informed to the petitioner. 6. However, still, if the petitioner has any grievance about the alleged inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, he is at liberty to lodge a private complaint before the Magistrate concerned, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., seeking appropriate relief. 7. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28-07-2008 Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police Warangal District, Warangal. 2 The Station House officer, Nekkonda Police Station, Nekkonda, Warangal District. 3. 2 CCs to the Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 4. 2 CD copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.14596 of 2008 28-07-2008 (Msr)