THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20077 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not executing non-bailable warrants and producing Sri Ogirala Hari Prasada Rao (A.1) before the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, as illegal, and consequently, to issue directions to the respondents to execute the said warrants and produce A.1 before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner is the wife of A.1. She lodged a complaint against him before the police. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.127 of 2006 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the file of Ongole I Town Police Station. It is her case that in spite of issuing non-bailable warrants by the learned Magistrate, the same are not being executed by the respondents without any valid reason. A counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that on the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered and the investigation revealed that prima facie case was made out against all the accused that they have committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is further stated that A.2 to A.4 were surrendered before the Court concerned and were enlarged on bail, and that A.1, who is the husband of the petitioner, is absconding since the date of commission of offence and his whereabouts are not known. It is further stated that charge sheet was already filed before the learned Magistrate and was numbered as C.C.No.453 of 2006 and prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrant against A.1 and accordingly, it was issued on 04.07.2006. It is further stated that in spite of their best efforts, the respondents could not execute the warrant against A.1 as such a requisition was filed before the learned Magistrate to issue proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) and based on the same, the learned Magistrate initiated such proceedings on 20.05.2010. It is also stated that pursuant to the said proceedings, steps under Section 82 of the Code were taken and necessary steps would be taken to proceed further under Section 83 of the Code. On the last occasion, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to give known address or city, where A.1 is presently residing. Today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not known, in which city, A.1 is presently living and in spite of her best efforts, the petitioner could not secure the address of A.1. In view of the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have taken steps under Section 82 of the Code and they would take steps under Section 83 of the Code, as they failed to execute non-bailable warrants, it cannot be said that there is a failure on the part of the respondents in execution of non-bailable warrants against A.1. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take steps under Section 83 of the Code and complete the process as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th JULY, 2010. kvni