IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE 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.9002 of 2008 Between: Sathi Subba Reddy, S/o. Bami Reddy, R/o. Kothakuluru Village, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by its Direct General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 4 The Station House Officer, Rayavaram Police Station, Rayavaram, East Godavari District. 5. Vaddi Chandrasekhar, s/o.Krishna Rao, aged about 32 years. 6. Vaddi Udayakumar, s/o. late Krishna Rao, aged about 35 years. 7. Lanka Sundara Rao, s/o. Sathenna, aged about 58 years. 8. Lanka Ram Prasad, s/o. Puthrayya, aged about 50 years. 9. Lanka Pramprasad, s/o. Nallayya, aged about 29 years. 10. Boddapati Musalayya, s/o. Macharayya, aged about 40 years. (respondents 5 to 10 are residents of Vedurupaka Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District). .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Kovvuri Krishna Reddy, S/o. Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about 65 years, R/o. Vedurupaka Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District before this Hon'ble Court and set him at his liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.T.L.NAYAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9002 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 the official respondents. 2. The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of one Kovvuri Krishna Reddy, son of Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about 65 years, resident of Vedurupaka village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, before this Court, who was illegally detained by the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, fourth respondent herein. 4. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, it appears that there are some quarrels between the family members of the unofficial respondents and the alleged detenu-Sri Kovvuri Krishna Reddy. The disputes are multifarious in nature, to which we are not inclined to refer. 5. Nevertheless, from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, we could see that a case in Crime No.75 of 2007 was registered against the alleged detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) of Rayavaram Police Station, East Godavari District. So also, another case in Crime No.96 of 2007 under the head “Man Missing” was registered. The counter also reveals that while investigation is under progress in the above said crimes, again on a private complaint made by Smt. Thokalla Satyamma before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, a case in Crime No.2 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 364, 365, 506, read with Section 34 IPC was also registered by the fourth respondent against the unofficial respondents. 6. From the above, we could see that the entire ire of the petitioner is against the unofficial respondents. But, it is obvious that the unofficial respondents are very much available and, in fact, it is the unofficial respondents, who gave a complaint against the alleged detenu. The investigation in various crimes, registered at the instance of both the parties against each other, is under progress. 7. In view of the above said fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. The parties are at liberty to pursue the remedies available under law, which, in fact, have already been availed of by them. 8. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09-06-2008. Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Direct General of Police, Government of A.P., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 4 The Station House Officer, Rayavaram Police Station, Rayavaram, East Godavari District. 5. Two CCs to Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 6. Two C.D. copies. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9002 of 2008 09-06-2008 (Msr)