HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. NO. 23195 OF 2011 Monday, the Seventeenth day of October, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Bethapudi Venkateswarlu Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) It is the case of the petitioner that he is an Arts Graduate and he is in love with the alleged detenu Ms. B.Vinodini d/o A.Venkata Subba Reddy, for the last four years. He married said Vinodini on 27.4.2011 at Dalita Kalyana Vedika Sangam and the marriage was consummated and also registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Secunderabad. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the alleged detenu belongs to forward class community. It is stated that in fact both of them lodged complaint with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for protection, which directed the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, on 29.4.2011 to enquire into the matter. It is stated that to their surprise, on 26.6.2011, father of the alleged detenu and two others kidnapped his wife in an Innova Car near Bhavani Nagar Kaman, Kushaiguda, while they were returning from charge. Immediately he lodged a complaint at Kushaiguda Police Station and a case in Cr. No. 409 of 2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Sec.366 IPC on 26.6.2011. As there was no progress in the investigation, he filed the present writ of habeas corpus. The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station, filed counter on 23.8.2011 stating that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, Cr. No.409 of 2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Sec.366 IPC and after recording the statement of the complainant, investigation was taken up and visited Upputuru village and found that the house of the suspect i.e. father of the alleged detenu was under lock and key three days prior to the registration of the crime. Thereafter, they secured the telephone number of the father of the alleged detenu, but the cell phone was switched off from 26.6.2011 itself. On verification they found that the father of the alleged detenu was present in the limits of Kushaiguda Police Station from the evening of 25.6.2011 till the date of alleged offence. The father of the alleged detenu had conversation with the alleged detenu on 25.6.2011 and 267.6.2011 and when the police visited the village of the alleged detenu again, the house was still found under lock and key upto 3.7.2011. On 7.7.2011, the police along with the complainant visited their house at Patancheru and enquired with the relatives of the suspect but they could not get useful information. The police also contacted their counter part in Nellore Rural Police Station and sought their cooperation in tracing the suspect and the victim girl. On 1.8.2011 another team was deputed to trace out the alleged detenu and the said team visited Kukatpally and Madhapur, but of no avail. It is stated that they have visited other places viz. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, but they could not trace out the alleged detenu. Inasmuch as this court expressed dissatisfaction with regard to the efforts made by the concerned police as in terms of the allegations, father of the alleged detenu himself kidnapped the wife of the petitioner, the learned Advocate General sought some more time for making serious efforts in tracing out the alleged detenu and the matter stood adjourned. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, filed status report on 6.9.2011 enumerating all possible efforts taken by them from 26.6.2011 to 5.9.2011. As the petitioner was not present on 10.10.2011, the matter stood adjourned for the presence of the petitioner. Today the Station House Officer, Kushaiguda, produced the alleged detenu before this court stating that she was traced on 14.10.2011 at Upputur village, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District, which is her native place. We have examined the alleged detenu and recorded her statement, wherein she stated that she would like to stay with her parents only. The alleged detenu is a major. The scope of this writ petition is limited to the extent of her production, as such, it is for the respective parties to workout their remedies before appropriate forum with regard to their rights over the other. As the alleged detenu is produced before this court, we are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the events that have happened previously. As on today, as the alleged detenu has expressed her desire to stay with the parents, no orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy October 17, 2011 MAS