Padarthi Anjaneyulu v. The Station House Officer, Chirala II Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.5076 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of his son viz., Padarthi Veerendranath before this Court.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his son and the sister of the fourth respondent herein viz., Shaik Nazeerunnisa were friends. On 28-11-2007, while his son and the sister of the fourth respondent were talking at the house of the fourth respondent, the son of the petitioner was attacked by the fourth respondent and his brother. When the son of the petitioner entered into his house and closed the door, the fourth respondent and his brother broke open the door and dragged the son of the petitioner on to the road and beat him with sticks. Thereupon, the assailants fled away by saying that they would see the end of the son of the petitioner. Thereafter, since 29- 11-2007 the son of the petitioner was found to be missing. Though a complaint had been made to the Station House Officer, Chirala II Town Police Station, on 29-11-2007, the same was not received by them. Even when a copy of the said complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, Prakasam District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District; and also the Inspector of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District, the police did not register the crime. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, who inturn referred the matter to the police for investigation. On reference, though the first respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.275 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 368, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”) and Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the fourth respondent and others, till date they could not get the son of the petitioner released from the custody of the fourth respondent. It is further stated in the affidavit that the police are very much aware that his son has been in the custody of the fourth respondent and is being harassed by him and his family members. It is the further apprehension of the petitioner that at any moment the fourth respondent may kill his son and that the police has not been conducting the investigation properly in spite of a crime being registered against the fourth respondent and others about two months ago.

4. From the above specific averments, it is obvious that the grievance of the petitioner is that his son has been in the custody of the fourth respondent and the police are at fault in not getting his son released from the custody of the fourth respondent. It is further obvious that basing on a private complaint lodged before the Magistrate concerned, a case in Crime No.275 of 2007 was also registered against the fourth respondent.

5. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not the averment of the petitioner that his son has been in the illegal captivity of the police and, on the other hand, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his son was illegally detained by the fourth respondent only. Further, it is to be noticed that on a private complaint made by the petitioner, a crime has already been registered against the fourth respondent and others and the same is pending.

6. Admittedly, when the son of the petitioner is in the custody of the fourth respondent, the same has to be verified by the investigating agency. Further, since the matter is pending before the Magistrate concerned and investigation is under progress, we cannot understand as to how a Writ of Habeas Corpus can be sought from this Court.

7. Furthermore, from the counter affidavit filed by the Station House Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District, the first respondent herein, it could be conspicuously seen that basing on the complaint made by the fourth respondent, the police have registered a case in Crime No.262 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 509 and 506 IPC against the missing son of the petitioner and the same is pending investigation. Therefore, when all the remedies that are available under law have already been availed of by both the parties and particularly when the missing son of the petitioner is in the custody of the fourth respondent and not in the custody of the police, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.

8. For the foregoing, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as having no merits.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09-06-2008. Msr. // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Station House Officer, Chirala II Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District. 2 The Inspector of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. 4. Two CCs to Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. Two C.D. copies. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.5076 of 2008 09-06-2008 (Msr)