HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPARAO W.P. No. 21934 of 2010 DATED: 22.02.2011 Between: Vallagi Anusha .. Petitioner And 1. The Secretary, Govt. of A.P. 2. Inspector General of Police 3. District Superintendent of Police 4. Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala 5. Sub-Inspector of Police, stuvartpuram 6. Superintendent of Police .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner is the wife of the alleged detenue. She asserts that they belong to Schedule Tribe Community, and eke out their livelihood by running an Auto Rickshaw. While so, she states that on 20.08.2010, her husband went out with the Auto and she went to her parents’ house along with her daughter. In the evening, when she returned home, she was informed by the neighbours that the 4th respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala, along with three constables and a Home Guard came to her house during her absence and enquired the whereabouts of her husband with the neighbours of the locality, and her husband did not return home till evening on that day. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 4th respondent along with his party, is constantly enquiring the whereabouts of her husband with the neighbours, and searching for her husband to take him into illegal detention and thereby harassing their family, which is in violation of the fundamental rights and she strongly suspects that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have detained him under their custody and not disclosing his whereabouts. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to produce her husband and set him free. She also prays to appoint a District Judge, Guntur to enquire into the atrocities committed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 under the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1889 and direct the 6th respondent- Superintendent of Police to enquire into the atrocities committed by them and submit a report and further direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner and her husband. The 5th respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Guntur has filed counter affidavit stating that the alleged detenue is not taken by the police into custody and no crime is pending against him and it is only on an apprehension that her husband might have been illegally detained, she impleaded respondent Nos.3 to 6 as parties to the writ petition. It is stated that after receiving communication from the office of the Advocate General on 03.09.2010, the police, Guntur went to the house of the petitioner at Stuvartpuram, but found it locked. The 3rd respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ongole filed counter affidavit along with the copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.106 of 2010, dated 19.08.2010 of Chirala II Town P.S., Case Diary Part-I and the remand report relating to the arrest of A3-Chirumamilla Raja and A4- Vallagi Ramu, the alleged detenue. It is stated that one V.Nageswaramma filed a report on 19.08.2010 stating that while she was in Sub-Jail, Guntur in connection with the family disputes she had acquaintance with one Meghamala, who said that she got lot of gold and if the complainant wants, she can give it for Rs.7000/- per sovereign and also collected her phone number. Owing to the persistent telephone calls made by Meghamala and the fact that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was fixed on 04.08.2010, when Nageswaramma was going along with two other ladies to the house of Meghamala with an amount of Rs.85,000/- for the purpose of purchasing gold and clothes, A2-Kunja Venkataiah, A3-Chirumamilla Raja, A4-Vallagi Ramu and A5-Guthi Ramesh styling themselves as police, threatened them with dire consequences, beat them and snatched away the cash and a gold ring. Then, the complainant lodged a report, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.106 of 2010 for the offence under Section 395 IPC against them and A1-K.Jayamma. On 21.08.2010, during the course of investigation, A5 to A7 were arrested at the house of A1 and produced before the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, who remanded and lodged them at Sub-Jail, Ongole, and thereafter, they were released on bail. A4 along with A3 was also arrested by the Inspector of Police on 18.11.2000 at Straight-cut Drainage Canal, Epurupalem in the presence of mediators and produced before the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, who enlarged them on bail. It is also stated that A4, the alleged detenue, was arrested vide remand report dated 18.11.2010 which was also entered in the Case Diary Part-I on the same day. Sri T. Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the husband of the petitioner was illegally arrested though his name was not found in the F.I.R. He belongs to Schedule Tribe Community and studied up to Intermediate First Year. He is innocent and not at all involved in the alleged crime, but the police have intentionally foisted a false case against him and others. He has further contended that the action of the respondents in arresting and detaining the alleged detenue is illegal and unsustainable. He has submitted that though serious allegations have been leveled against the 4th respondent, the fundamental rights of the petitioner’s husband have been infringed by the police, and therefore, a detailed enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, is required to be ordered, and in the event the police have violated the fundamental rights of the detenue, the petitioner and her husband shall be entitled to compensation of rupees one lakh. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General and perused the entire material placed on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the alleged detenue is not figured in F.I.R. is incorrect, and in fact, his name is found in the Remand Report and also in F.I.R. wherein his name is shown as A4. Insofar as the compliance of the legal procedure is concerned, the police secured two mediators in whose presence A3 and A4 were arrested as is evident from the case Diary Part-I, and the accused also confessed that each of them took Rs.2000/- towards their share in the stolen property, and after explaining the grounds for their arrest by serving notice under Sections 50 and 51 Cr.P.C., the police informed the particulars of their arrest to their relatives and the mediators, therefore, it cannot be said that the prescribed procedure has not been followed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the registration of crime against the detenue and others in connection with the complaint lodged by V.Nageswaramma. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments of Apex Court rendered in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others[1], Sri D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal[2] and Somittal Vs. State of Karnataka[3] and contended that the fundamental rights of the alleged detenue have been violated in respect of the arrest of the husband of the petitioner by implicating him in a false case. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the counter filed by the 3rd respondent with regard to the involvement of the alleged detenue-A4 in the crime, his arrest and the remand. Further, a perusal of the Case Diary Part-I and the remand report discloses that all the required procedure and formalities have been complied with during the course of the arrest of the petitioner for his involvement in a cognizable offence. In offences like dacoity, it cannot be said that the arrest of the accused is not warranted. The case is not registered on mere suspicion or any doubt. The name of the alleged detenue is also figured as A4 both in the complaint and in F.I.R. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the police have scrupulously followed the required procedure and have not infringed any of the fundamental rights of the detenue in arresting and detaining him. Even according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Hence, we do not see any merits in this writ petition, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 22.02.2011 __________________ V. SURI APPARAO, J bcj [1] 1994(4) SCC 260 [2] 1996(8) SUPREME 581 [3] 2008(3) SCC 753