THE HON'BLE SRI JU​STICE V. ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO DATED: 01-03-2011 WRIT PETITION No. 4532 OF 2011 Between: Kattubadi Mohammed Shakeer ..... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District and two others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4532 OF 2011 ORDER: (per Sri V. Eswaraiah, J) The petitioner – Kattubadi Mohammed Shakeer filed this writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Ragaleena, daughter of V. Krishna Murthy, aged about 19 years of Proddatur Town, Kadapa (YSR) District, before this Court. It is stated by the petitioner that he is working as a tutor in Prince Computer Centre at Proddatur and the said Ragaleena – alleged detenue used to attend the said computer centre in the evening. It is stated that the father of Ragaleena made a complaint on 01-02-2010 alleging that his daughter, who is a minor, fell in love with the petitioner and missing from the evening of 28-01-2010 and that he might have eloped with his daughter. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.9 of 2010 under Sections 109, 363 and 366 (A) IPC was registered and the petitioner and the alleged detenue - Ragaleena were produced before the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and on the request of the alleged detenue that she has a threat to her life in the hands of her parents and uncle, the learned Magistrate by order dated 16-02-2010 directed the 1st respondent to send her to the Women Protection Cell at Kadapa. Thereafter, she has sent a petition CFR No. 3818 of 2010 to the learned Magistrate requesting for her release from the protection home as she is a major and no threat existed as on that date. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on 08-11-2010. Aggrieved by the same, she filed Criminal Petition No.12674 of 2010 before this Court to quash order dated 08-11-2010. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said criminal petition by order dated 21-01-2011 after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State, holding that though her date of birth as per SSC pass certificate is 08- 07-1993, however, she disputed the same contending that her actual date of birth is 04-08-1992 and in support of her contention she produced the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Proddatur Municipality, wherein her date of birth is shown as 04-08-1992 and also a delivery certificate showing the date of birth as 04-08-1992. Taking into consideration the said certificates, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that she became major aged about 18 years and 4 ½ month and, therefore, her detention in the protection home is unwarranted. As she is a major it is for her to look after her welfare and she has every right to lead what sort of life she wants. The criminal petition was thus allowed and she was directed to be released from the Protection Home, Kadapa, and set at liberty forthwith. Though the learned single Judge allowed the criminal petition on 21-01-2011, the alleged detenue was not released and, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ of habeas corpus a month thereafter i.e., on 21-02-2011 stating that though the order copy of this Court was served long back, the respondents have not released her in accordance with law so far. She is illegally kept under detention and custody at the instance of her parents and, therefore, the action of the respondents is totally unjustified, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent – the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District stating that during the course of investigation pursuant to the said crime registered based on the complaint of the father of the alleged detenue, the police recorded her statement wherein she stated that she voluntarily left with the petitioner and that both of them got married at Bangalore in a temple. As the alleged detenue is a minor, she was taken into custody on 15-02-2010 and both of them were produced before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur on 16- 02-2010 who remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and pursuant to the remand order, he was lodged at Sub-Jail, Proddatur and was subsequently enlarged on bail. As the learned Magistrate directed that the alleged detenue be kept in a shelter home through Women Protection Cell-cum-Integrated Women and Child Welfare Department, Kadapa, she was lodged at Swadhara Shelter Home, Kadapa from 16- 02-2010. It is also stated that the alleged detenue sent a petition to the learned Magistrate for her release and the same was dismissed on 08- 11-2011 against which she filed the said criminal petition. The learned single Judge ordered that the alleged detenue and her parents be produced before the Court on 31-12-2010 and accordingly, they were produced before the Court wherein she stated that she is not inclined to stay with her parents and requested for her release from the shelter home. Finally, the said criminal petition was allowed on 21-01-2011, but the copy of the said order was received only on 24-02-2011. It is further stated by the first respondent that when he was about to visit Swadhara Shelter Home, he came to know that the Project Officer, ICDS, Kadapa was not available and she had her departmental workshop at Hyderabad on 25-02-2011 and 26-02-2011. Meanwhile, the present writ petition came to be filed and after receiving the communication from the office of the learned Advocate General, immediately, he visited the home, caused enquiries and came to know that the order passed in the criminal petition was not received by the Project Director, ICDS, Kadapa. It is also stated that as per the orders of this Court dated 25-02-2011 directing him to produce the alleged detenue Ragaleena before this Court, she is accordingly produced. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor any other person ever approached him for the release of the alleged detenue as per the orders in the criminal petition and the copy of the order was received by them only on 24-02-2011 and when they were about to implement the orders, the writ petition is filed. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the counter as to why the alleged detenue was not released till date even after receipt of the order on 24-02-2011. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the criminal petition was allowed after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent herein and as the shelter home is not a party, it is the duty of the police to implement the orders of the Court in the criminal petition and release the alleged detenue. He further submits that there cannot be any justification in the explanation offered by the 1st respondent that the Project Director, ICDS, Kadapa was not available on 25-02-2011 and 26-02-2011 as she had gone to Hyderabad. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate General about the inability of the concerned police in releasing the alleged detenue. Since the learned single Judge had directed release of the alleged detenue after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State rep., by Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa, the first respondent cannot keep quiet in the matter, he being a party to the criminal petition. It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to immediately inform about the result of the criminal petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the alleged detenue is in illegal custody from 22-01-2011. Even according to the counter filed by the first respondent, order copy was received on 24-02-2011 and he did not do anything expressing inability merely because the Project Director is out of station on 25-02- 2011 and 26-02-2011. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to the allowed with exemplary costs. Further, there is disobedience of the orders of this court since the orders of the learned single Judge have not been implemented. Therefore, the Deputy Inspector General, Rayalaseema Region is directed to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action against all the concerned. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the respondents to the alleged detenue within four weeks from today. The alleged detenue is set at free and she is at liberty to go with the petitioner as per her will and wish and as per her desire. Since she is apprehending danger to her life and liberty in the hands of her parents, we direct the police to give her necessary protection and also file a report before this Court about the measures taken by them. Post after six weeks. V. ESWARAIAH, J V. SURI APPA RAO, J 01-03-2011 ks