THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18411 of 2007 ORDER: ( Per AGR,J) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to produce male child born to the petitioner and the ﬁrst respondent on 02.12.2004 at the hospital of the ﬁfth respondent and missing since 06.12.2004. After the child is born, when the petitioner visited ﬁfth respondent’s hospital on 06.12.2004, the fourth respondent rushed to him and stated that the baby was abducted by two unknown women from the hospital. Immediately, he lodged a complaint with the sixth respondent-station house oﬃcer but the child was not traced. The ﬁrst respondent after discharge from the hospital lived with the petitioner up to 10.10.2005 in his parents’ house at Kirlampudi and were blessed with a female child by name Suvarna Subrahmanyeswari and later they shifted to a rental house in Prathipadu and living separately from his parents. While so, the ﬁrst respondent was taken away by her cousin Ch. Nageswara Rao to her parents’ house on the pretext of Sankranthi festival. But he could not get them back to lead conjugal life. Respondents 1 to 4 insisted the petitioner to demand his father to sell away the petitioner’s share from the self-acquired property of his father and to settle with that money. While so, the sixth respondent in the month of August 2006 called the petitioner and his father and respondents 2 to 4 and the couple who are the custodians of the child. The couple revealed that the child in their custody was purchased by them when the child was ﬁve days infant on 06.12.2004 from a nurse by name Venkatalakshmi of ﬁfth respondent hospital. After that the sixth respondent informed the petitioner that he will call him and his wife after completion of the investigation but so far he has not received any information. Believing that the child in the custody of the couple who were brought to the police station in August, 2006 is missing child, the present writ petition has been ﬁled for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of the child and for a direction to the ﬁfth respondent to pay compensation for its negligence etc. and pending the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29723 of 2007 is ﬁled to implead respondents 8 and 9 in the writ petition, alleging that the child is in the custody of the eighth respondent. Counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent who is none other than the wife of the petitioner discloses that after registering Cr.No.533 of 2004 under Section 363 I.P.C. herself and her parents tried their level best to trace the child. After giving birth to the child, the petitioner did not care either for herself or for the child but the parents visited the hospital. While so, on 06.12.2004, the fourth respondent attended her in the hospital and took the child to the hospital of Dr.Joga Rao to get the polio vaccine to the child. While she was taking the child in an auto, one unknown lady by playing fraud took away the child from her custody. Immediately, she lodged a complaint, which was registered as Cr.No.533 of 2004 before the III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry. Later, her parents continued their search for missing child and during the enquiry they learnt that one male child is in the custody of one Boddu Satyanarayana-respondent No.8 who is impleaded and they also learnt that the said child was bought from one unknown lady. The police advised the petitioner as well as herself to undergo D.N.A. test to decide the parenthood of the child who is in the custody of B. Satyanarayana but the petitioner did not cooperate with the police and used to blame her and her family members for missing the male child and used to harass her both mentally and physically and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home for bringing balance dowry. Therefore, she ﬁled D.V.C.No.38 of 2008 before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvuru in December, 2008 seeking protection order and maintenance etc. in which Crl.M.P.No.961 of 2009 was ﬁled seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- to the petitioner and her daughter. Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur granted interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- each to herself and her daughter by order dated 21.07.2009. As the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, the Court below issued N.B.W against the petitioner. Counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the sixth respondent also discloses that on lodging the complaint by the fourth respondent crime was registered under Section 363 Cr.P.C. and investigation was taken up. As no information was forthcoming with regard to the missing child, the Investigating Oﬃcer sent Investigation Report to Sub- Divisional Police Oﬃcer, Rajahmundry for according permission to close the case as “undetected”. After obtaining permission on 30.08.2007, ﬁnal report was prepared and ﬁled in the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Counter aﬃdavits have also been ﬁled by the ﬁfth and ninth respondents denying the various averments made in the writ petition, which are not necessary for the disposal of the writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent and the State. When the child was kidnapped by unknown person on 06.12.2004, the petitioner has not lodged any complaint before the police. The fourth respondent who took the child from the hospital to get the child vaccinated on 06.12.2004 and from whose hands the child was taken away by unknown lady has given a report, on which basis crime was registered as aforementioned under Section 363 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, when the child was found in possession of the eighth respondent who is not a natural father, the police insisted the petitioner and the ﬁrst respondent to undergo DNA test to know the parenthood of the child and to establish that the child in the custody of the eighth respondent is the child of the petitioner and ﬁrst respondent but the petitioner did not cooperate with the police. Therefore, issuance of writ of habeas corpus for production of the child does not arise. When the police ﬁled a ﬁnal report as case undetected, the remedy available to the petitioner is to ﬁle a protest petition before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry before whom the ﬁnal report has been ﬁled by the police, for reinvestigation and also expressing his willingness to undergo DNA test to know about the parenthood of the child in the custody of the eighth respondent. In view of the remedies available to the petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of habeas corpus and payment of compensation is misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him. No costs. A.GOPAL REDDY,J R.KANTHA RAO,J Dt. 21.11.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18411 of 2007 ( Per AGR,J) Dt. 21.11.2011