Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 226
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Sri R. Mahender, S/o. R. Chandraiah, R/o. H.No. 2-3-474/8, Raghunath Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, A.P. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad District, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad, A.P., 3 The Station House Officer, Police Station Hayath Nagar, Cyberabad Dist., Hayathnagar, R.R. Dist. A.P., 4 The Hostel Welfare Officer, Govt. S.W. Boys Hostel, Batasingaram Village, R.R. Dist., A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking steps to produce the petitioner's minor son R. Rajender since the date of registering the case vide crime No. 510 of 2005 of P S Hayath Nagar, Cyberabad District., is arbitrary and illegal and violation of the article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's minor son namely R. Rajender, aged about 11 years and handover to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28627 of 2007
ORAL ORDER :
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition of Habeas Corpus is filed to produce the petitioner’s son, by name Sri R.Rajender, who is aged about 11 years.
The facts are that a case in Crime No.580 of 2005 was registered by the Hayathnagar police under the heading “Boy Missing” on 12-12-2005 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police have filed a final report before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, as ‘undetected’. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that the police have admitted that they have sent the boy to the Bal Bhavan, Secunderabad.
The grievance of the petitioner, if any, can be agitated before the concerned Magistrate during the pendency of passing of the final orders. Admittedly, no final orders are passed by the learned Magistrate as required under law.
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned as and when required, we deem it appropriate to close the writ petition with a direction to the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders, duly taking note of the objections, if any, that may be raised by the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. However, 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 Secretary to Government, Department of Home, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad District, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad, A.P., 3 The Station House Officer, Police Station Hayath Nagar, Cyberabad Dist., Hayathnagar, R.R. Dist. A.P., 4 The Hostel Welfare Officer, Govt. S.W. Boys Hostel, Batasingaram Village, R.R. Dist., A.P., 5. Two CCs to the Advocate General, Government of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 6. Two C.D. copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28627 of 2007 09-06-2008 (Msr)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.