IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH 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. 15177 of 2008 Between: Isamoddin, S/o.Mohd.Mustafa, R/o.H.No.13-6-431/E/105, Moghal Nagar Karwan, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Basheerbagh,Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer, Falakhnama Police station Old City, Hyderabad. 3 Smt.Noorjaha Begum, W/o.Shareef Hussain, R/o.H.No.19-2-29/11/C, Tadban, Hyderabad. 4 Smt.Najma Begum, W/o.Nijam Shareef, R/o.Opp: H.No.19-4-280/D1/50/1, Near Gudi Hospital, Nawabsabkunta, Old City, Hyderabad. 5 Nijam Shareef, S/o.Raheem Shareef, R/o.Opp:H.No.19-4-280/D1/50/1, Near Gudi Hospital Nawabsabkunta, Old City, 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 issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 to 5 in illegally detaining the Baby Jebaa D/o.Isamoddin as a illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art.14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1&2 to produce the body of Baby Jebaa from illegal, detention and set her free and consequently handover the custody of minor to petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.L.SURENDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : ----- 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.15177 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 respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce his minor daughter viz., Baby Jebaa before this Court, who was illegally detained by respondent Nos.3 to 5 and consequently handover the custody of minor girl to him. 3. It appears that the wife of the petitioner, who was allegedly suffering with psychological disorder, was found missing. When a female dead body was found in the forest area of Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, suspecting the said dead body as that of the wife of the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 to 5 gave a complaint before the police and basing on the same a case in Crime No.373 of 2003 was registered against the petitioner and his family members. In connection with the said crime, the petitioner and his family members were arrested and subsequently the said case ended in acquittal. While the petitioner and his family members were in judicial custody, respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are the sisters and brother of his wife, have forcibly taken the custody of the child and not disclosing the whereabouts of the child. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not disclosing the whereabouts of the child and, therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are under obligation to trace the minor girl and hand over her custody to the petitioner. 5. It is to be seen that when the petitioner himself is not sure of the whereabouts of the minor girl, he can as well give a complaint to the police against respondent Nos.3 to 5 or against any other person in whose custody the girl is. But, no such complaint is allegedly pending against anybody. On the contrary, he filed the present writ petition seeking production of his child. 6. In this context, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a complaint has been lodged before the second respondent, the same had not been taken cognizance of. 7. But, we are of the view that it is always open for the petitioner to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate concerned and seek appropriate relief. That apart, the petitioner has the other remedy of approaching the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 8. It is pertinent to note here that when the mother of the petitioner filed a petition before the Family Court seeking custody of the minor girl, a finding was recorded by the said Court to the effect that the mother of the petitioner had failed to establish that respondent Nos.3 to 5 were in the custody of the minor girl. Therefore, the very custody of the child with respondent Nos.3 to 5 could not be established before the competent Court. 9. Therefore, in view of the availability of various other alternative and efficacious remedies to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant the relief sought for. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedies available to him in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15-07-2008 Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer, Falakhnama Police Station, Old City, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Advocate General, Government of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15177 of 2008 15-07-2008 (Msr)