IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4209 of 2009 Between: Chenaram Suthar S/o. Thagaram, Hindu H.No. 231/L, Audiah Nagar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police Market Police Station, Secunderabad. 2 Ramchandar Jhangid S/o. Not known R/o. Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 especially one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st respondent to produce the missing girl Kumari Sumitra in the interests of justice and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The father of the alleged detenue, namely, Sumitra, filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus for release of his minor daughter, who is aged bout 16 years, from the illegal custody of the second respondent. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to Rajasthan State. He left his three children at Rajasthan, and migrated to Hyderabad along with his wife and the alleged detenue to eke out livelihood. While so, on 17.02.2009, the alleged detenue went out of the house for fetching milk packet and did not return to home. Then the petitioner searched for the alleged detenue, and as she did not find, he lodged a complaint with the first respondent- police at 10 p.m. suspecting that the second respondent, who is a resident of Tirumalghery, was moving along with him for the search of the girl. On the basis of the information furnished by the second respondent, the first respondent recorded the statement of the petitioner and registered the same as F.I.R., but so far the girl has not been traced. In response to rule nisi, the Inspector of Police, Market Police Station, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, filed counter affidavit stating that basing on the statement of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.32 of 2009 was registered under the head of “Girl Missing” and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer deputed one Constable along with the younger brother of the petitioner herein to Rajasthan. The said Constable, with the help of the local police, along with the brother of the petitioner herein, moved in and around Pali and Ajmeer District of Rajasthan, but could not trace either the suspect or the missing girl, and returned to Hyderabad. While so, on 4.03.2009 the first respondent received a cover sent through speed post from Pali of Rajasthan State, containing a letter signed by the missing girl along with certain other documents, wherein she stated that she voluntarily married one Goutham Prakash at Arya Samaj, Anjeer, Rajasthan and is living with him and in-laws happily and she did not want the police to interfere into her life. She also enclosed marriage certificate, sworn statement, age determination certificate issued by the Medical Jurist, Bangur Hospital, Pali, Rajasthan State, determining the she is above 18 years and below 20 years. On receipt of the above cover, the Head Constable forwarded the same to the investigating officer for necessary action. The victim girl has now been produced before this Court. On examination by this Court, she stated that she was forced to marry one Goutham Prakash and while exerting threats obtained signatures on the letters, and the sent the same in a cover to the first respondent police Secunderabad. Since the victim girl wants to live along with her father, who is the petitioner herein, her custody was handed over to the petitioner. Since the custody of the victim girl has been given to the petitioner, no cause survives in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.) 13th March, 2009 Js.