THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 06-06-2011 WRIT PETITION No. 19124 OF 2010 Between: Kota Nagaraju ..... PETITIONER AND The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Beside Assembly, Hyderabad and four others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No. 19124 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The petitioner – husband filed this writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his wife named Kota Rajitha (Niveditha) along with their younger son Manideep, aged three years left the house on 21-08-2009 and are in illegal custody of her father – respondent No.5. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, Crime No. 297 of 2009 was registered on 25-08-2009 under the head ‘woman missing’, but so far the investigation has not been completed nor the whereabouts of his wife and son are made known. Hence, the petitioner seeks that the police be directed to produce his wife and son. The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, the 3rd respondent herein filed a counter stating that the daughter of the 5th respondent Rajitha was given in marriage to the petitioner about seven years back and was blessed with two children aged about 6 years and 1 ½ years. While so, on 06-02-2009 the petitioner informed the 5th respondent over telephone that his daughter is coming to Godavarikhani and asked him to receive her. As his daughter did not turn up, the 5th respondent came to Karimnagar and enquired with the petitioner who informed that she left the house. The 5th respondent suspected the petitioner and made a complaint on which basis a case in Crime No.35 of 2009 was registered under the head ‘woman missing’. As the petitioner himself brought the alleged detenue before the police, the said crime was closed as ‘action dropped’ and final report was filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar. Subsequently, the petitioner himself lodged the complaint on 25-08-2009 stating that his wife has left the home on 21-08-2009 along with minor son basing on which Crime No. 297 of 2009 was registered under head ‘woman missing’. The 3rd respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit detailing the investigation of the crime. The 5th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that apart from lodging of the complaint on 12-02-2009, he also filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission on 12-03-2009. Since pressure was mounting on the police, the petitioner produced his daughter with the aid and assistance of the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station on 10-06-2009 informing that his daughter is found and asked him to come down to Karimnagar. It is also stated that in the police station, the petitioner had obtained the signatures of the alleged detenue on blank papers. It is further stated that the petitioner also filed FCOP No. 77 of 2009 before the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed on 24-02-2010 recording that unless the whereabouts of the alleged detenue are traced out, the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the Court after the alleged detenue is traced out. From the above it is clear that there are disputes between the petitioner and his wife. Further, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the police registered the crime under the head ‘woman missing’ and the investigation is under progress. Since the alleged detenue is not in illegal detention of the 5th respondent as alleged in the writ petition, issuance of writ of habeas corpus for her production does not arise. Suffice it to say that since the police have already registered Crime No. 297 of 2009 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Kariminagar based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, they are directed to complete the investigation with all seriousness and file a report before the concerned Magistrate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A.GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 06-06-2011 ks