IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 3860 of 2009 Between: Dharmavaram Srinivas S/o.D.Laxmaiah R/o.H.No.2-12-67, Golehanman, near to Mahila Police Station, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1The Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 2The Inspector of Police, Nizamabad I Town, Nizamabad District. 3The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 4Sastri Srinivas S/o.Sastri Shanker, R/o.adjacent to Boi Sangam, Boigally, Weekly Bazar, Nizamabad. 5Bharath Reddy, President, Bhajrangdhal District Unit, Nizamabad, R/o.Namdevwada, Nizamabad. 6Jugal Panday, R/o. Ramgopal Street, Nizamabad. 7Kamma Laxman S/o.Mallesham R/o. Pochammagalli, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 8Shiva Kumar S/o.Rajeswar R/o.Golehanman, Nizamabad District. 9Srinivas Sarma S/o.Krishna R/o.Sitaram Nagar Colony, Nizamabad. .....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 of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the daughter of the petitioner by name D.Lavanya (aged 20 years), before this Hon'ble Court, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 3860 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) One Dharmavaram Srinivas filed this Writ Petition seeking writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce his daughter by name D.Lavanya, aged 20 years, before this Court. In the affidavit, the petitioner alleged that the 4th respondent herein who was following his daughter for the last six months while she was going to college, on 14.2.2009 met her on road by giving information to the Bajarangdal Activists, who had openly proclaimed before the print and electronic media that they would perform marriage, if male and female are seen in pairs on the roads on 14.2.2009. On receiving the information from 4th respondent, the President and other members of Bajarangdal District Unit of Nizamabad obstructed the daughter of the petitioner at about 11.00 a.m. on the same day and that they threatened her to marry 4th respondent and they forcibly took her to the B.J.P. Office at Khaleel Wadi and made the 4th respondent to tie the knot to the daughter of the petitioner in spite of her objection. While so, on 23.2.2009 the daughter of the petitioner was found missing and she made a call to him and informed that without her consent, Thali was tied around her neck and that she was detained by the 4th respondent with the active support of respondents 5 to 9. On that, though the petitioner approached the police, no action has been taken so far. The affidavit filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town Police Station, Nizamabad, the 3rd respondent herein discloses that the daughter of the petitioner is a major and fell in love with 4th respondent while she was pursuing B.Sc. III Year and she left with 4th respondent and married him. It is also asserted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.14 of 2009 under the head ‘Woman Missing’ was registered and investigation was taken up and necessary action would be taken to apprehend the accused therein and to trace out the missing girl. In pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 12.3.2009, today the missing girl has been produced before this Court along with 4th respondent. When enquired with the girl, she asserted that she has not been illegally detained by the 4th respondent or anybody and that she willingly married him and living with him. She also filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1352 of 2009 for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 16.3.2009 dismissed the petition holding that there is no necessity for giving such a statement before him as she is not speaking anything against the accused in the crime. Having regard to the fact that the daughter of the petitioner is a major and she herself asserted that she has not been illegally detained by 4th respondent and she voluntarily left the house and married him and living with him, no adjudication is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J.) MARCH 23, 2009 TSR