IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4510 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Jagamma W/o. K. Rama Chandra Reddy R/o. H.No. 10-4-107,. Altafnagar, Bairamalguda, Ranga Reddy District. 2 K. Rama Chandra Reddy S/o. Liasnga Reddy R/o. H.No. 10-4-107,. Altafnagar, Bairamalguda, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad , Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 3 G. Sathi Reddy S/o. G. Yadi Reddy R/o. Almasguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 C. Manjula W/o. Linga Reddy R/o. Lakkinanegudem Village, Chandoor Mandalam, Nalgonda 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 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in detaining the petitioners grandson Sravan Kumar Reddy @ Kumar Reddy aged 8 years as illegal, and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the said detenue before this Hon'ble Court, set him at liberty and handover his custody to the petitioners who are the paternal grand parents of the said detenue and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The petitioners who are the grandparents of Master Sravan Kumar Reddy @ Sai Kumar Reddy, filed this writ of Habeas Corpus seeking direction to the respondent No.3 for production of their grandson, aged about 8 years and to set him at liberty by handing over his custody to them. Admittedly, the son of the petitioners K. Indira Reddy got married 4th respondent and during their wedlock, Master Sravan Kumar Reddy @ Sai Kumar Reddy born to them. Due to ill-health, the son of the petitioners died on 20.5.2002 and thereupon the 4th respondent left for her parents’ house along with her son, who is the grandson of the petitioners and she never returned to her matrimonial home. It is averred that the 4th respondent contacted second marriage with one Linga Reddy of Lakkinenigudem Village leaving the custody of the minor boy to her cousin sister, who is the wife of 3rd respondent herein. According to the petitioners, since the 4th respondent contacted second marriage, she cannot keep the custody of their grandson with the 3rd respondent and the petitioners being the grandparents are entitled to the custody of the boy and therefore, they filed the present writ petition. The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, R.R.District, second respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that on 17.1.2008 the petitioners filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad alleging that in their absence on 14.12.2007, their daughter-in-law i.e. the 4th respondent herein came to their house and kidnapped their grandson without their consent. On forwarding the complaint by the learned Magistrate, a case in Crime No.41 of 2008 under Sections 368, 406, 44, 364 read with 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered on 17.1.2008. The investigation into the said crime revealed that the complaint allegations are false and therefore, the investigating officer addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar for according permission to refer the matter as ‘false’ and permission was accorded on 10.3.2008 and therefore, steps are being taken to refer the matter as ‘false’. At the out set, it is to be seen there is variation in the allegations made in the writ petition and in the private complaint filed by the petitioners, on which basis Crime No.41 of 2008 has been registered. The complaint was based on the allegations of kidnapping the boy from the custody of the petitioners by the 4th respondent in their absence whereas, in the writ petition it is alleged that the boy was under the custody of 4th respondent, who left her matrimonial house on the death of petitioners’ son. These are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ of Habeas Corpus. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the police, after investigation into the matter, are taking steps to file a report before the Court referring the matter as ‘false’, the petitioners will have remedy to file a protest petition before the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, if they are aggrieved, and on such protest petition being filed, it is for the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter. That apart, the petitioners can also avail the remedy to move the competent civil Court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and also the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor boy i.e. the grandson of the petitioners. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 25.03.2008 Tsr. To 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad , Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Home, High Court Buildings, (OUT) 4. Two C.D. copies.