IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.1653 of 2010 Between: M.Venkateswara Reddy … Petitioner And The State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its authorized officer. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.1653 of 2010 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner invoked the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court for production of Avula Sarada, daughter of the petitioner alleging that the marriage of the detenue was performed with respondent No.2 at Khammam on 09.04.2009 and at that time he paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards pasupukumkuma and gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and other household articles to respondent Nos.2 to 4. After two or three months of their married life, respondent No.2 started harassing the alleged detenue both physically and mentally with the support of respondent Nos.3 and 4 demanding more money and gold from the petitioner. In addition to the same, respondent No.2 got illicit intimacy with some other lady. Meanwhile, the detenue conceived. In spite of the same, the harassment continues and on coming to know of such harassment, the petitioner went to the house of respondent No.2 so many times with village elders and the respondents demanded Rs.2,00,000/-, which the petitioner has not fulfilled. While so, on 23.09.2009 when the petitioner went to respondent No.2’s house for seeing his daughter, she was not available. From the said date onwards, the whereabouts of the alleged detenue are not known and hence, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are responsible for illegal detention of the alleged detenue. In response to the notice sent by the petitioner, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 denying the allegations made about the harassment meted out to the detenue and demand of dowry etc. It is further stated that even before the marriage, the girl i.e., the alleged detenue is in the habit of going outside for days together without informing her parents. At that time respondent No.2 sought information with regard to her missing from her house and her parents informed that she stayed in a hostel at Tirupati. Both the families resides in the same street and while so on 23.09.2009, in the absence of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who gone to the fields for agriculture, the detenue left the house without saying anything by taking Rs.6,000/- and gold ornaments and on coming to know of her missing at 2 p.m., the detenue’s brother came to respondent No.2’s house, but she was not available. Both the family members i.e., the family of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 searched the village to know the whereabouts of the missing girl, but their efforts were in vain and they have also travelled to various towns including Tirupati, Hyderabad, Warrangal, Hanumakonda, Manuguru and Sathupalli. The father of respondent No.2 and her maternal uncle by name Govinda Reddy went Tirupati town specifically to trace out the alleged detenue, as in the past time she went Tirupati and stayed in Ladies Hostel, but her whereabouts could not be traced. Immediately the petitioner lodged a complaint, on which basis a crime was registered and in the said complaint, except stating missing and suspicion, nothing was stated by the petitioner. It is not stated about the harassment or ill treatment of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and all these facts are invented only for the purpose of this writ petition. A reply has been filed by the petitioner revealing the harassment and demand of additional dowry made by the respondents. Respondent No.1 filed a counter stating that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 03.12.2009, crime No.194 of 2009 was registered under the head of '’Woman missing” on 03.12.2009 and during the course of investigation, he examined the complainant and also in-laws of the alleged detenue, who are respondent Nos.2 to 4, by calling them to the police station more than one occasion. Search teams were deputed to trace out the alleged detenue, who are moving around Khammam, Warrangal and Hyderabad, but they could not trace the whereabouts of the girl. The contents of the F.I.R. filed along with the counter by respondent No.1, also discloses except stating that the alleged detenue was missing from the house of her in-laws from 23.09.2009, it is not alleged that she was ill treated for not providing additional dowry and gold demanded by respondent Nos.2 to 4 nor stated about the panchayat held with the village elders in the initial stage of lodging the complaint. In view of the same, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked with exaggerated allegations against respondent Nos.2 to 4 in their anxiety to get the girl traced. Since a case in crime No.194 of 2009 is already registered, police are directed to complete the investigation within three months and file necessary report before the competent court, having jurisdiction over the area, after due intimation to the petitioner forthwith. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 7TH June 2010 Lmv