HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.14680 of 2011 Dated: 27-06-2011 Between: M.Ratna …Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.14680 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce her daughter-Sadhvini, aged about 2 years before this Court and to set her at liberty forthwith. According to the petitioner, she married one Amarnath Reddy, that her mother-5th respondent herein had gifted her house property, situated at NBT Nagar Road, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in her favour. After some months, 5th respondent started harassing her both physically and mentally in order to take back the gifted property. While so, on 31.1.2011, 5th respondent along with others came to her, beat her and took away the alleged detenue. Petitioner lodged a complaint with the police of Banjara Hills Police Station and as they have not taken any action, she lodged a private complaint before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and though it was referred, so far, police have not taken any action. Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Staiton-4th respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that on reference of complaint made by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.561 of 2011 was registered under Sections 365, 366-A, 384, 406 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and investigation was taken up. On examination, 5th respondent stated that her daughter-petitioner herein after her graduation started living with her paramour-M.Amarnath Reddy, that her husband purchased a house of 90 sq.yds. bearing H.No.8-2- 684/117, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad which was let out, that the petitioner used to collect the rents of the said house and spent the same for her education and personal needs, and that the petitioner after giving birth to the alleged detenue went away with her paramour. It is stated that since the date of birth, the alleged detenue is under the care and custody of 5th respondent. It is stated by fourth respondent that as there are disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent with regard to the house property, the present writ petition has been filed. When the matter was posted for hearing on 21.6.2011, none represented the petitioner and hence the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to substantiate the alleged illegal custody of alleged detenue by 5th respondent. Having regard to the disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent and as the police have already registered a case, 4th respondent is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the parties are at liberty to avail the remedies for custody of the alleged detenue before the appropriate forum. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ JUNE 27, 2011 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.