WP/18718/2006 of Vaddadi Kanakamahalakshmi W/o Vaddadi Apparao Vs The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, on 26 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OFANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAAND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX

TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.18718 OF 2006

Between:

Smt. Vaddadi Kanakamahalakshmi w/o Vaddadi Apparao Petitioner

AND

The Station House Officer,I Town Police Station,Visakhapatnam and others Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAAND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY

TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.18718 OF 2006

ORAL ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S.R.Varma)

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Home,representing the learned Advocate General, appearing forthe respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is taken up on the basis of aletter, dated 26.08.2006, by the petitioner – VaddadiKanakamahalakshmi, W/o. Vaddadi Apparao, D.No.20-28-5, Painderpeta, Relliveedhi, Visakhapatnam, to theHon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, alleging that, on 7.2.2006, her minor daughterwas kidnapped by one Chenna Satish, who is working asa Sea Man in Merchant Navy, from her house in day light;that she reported the matter to the I Town Police Stationimmediately; that again on 9.2.2006 she gave a writtenreport to the said I Town Police mentioning the things andthe names of the culprits and instigators; that surprisingly,the police directed her to give another report and alsodirected her another daughter to draft fresh report, whichwas dictated by the said police, on 10.2.2006; that on thebasis of said report, the police registered a case as ‘girlmissing’ instead of ‘kidnap; that after knowing the fraudplayed by the police, they approached the Commissionerof Police and other officers number of times and narratedthe facts; that finally though the police altered the FIR from‘girl missing’ to ‘kidnap’, they did not take any action tilltoday and prayed to direct the police to produce her minordaughter immediately, otherwise the safety of the minorgirl will be in trouble.

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, by this Court, the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station,Visakhapatnam, filed counter-affidavit, stating, inter alia,that the then Inspector, having received the complaint,failed to register the same and instead directed the elderdaughter of the petitioner to give another complaint andaccordingly second complaint was given on 10.02.2006;that the said lapse was brought to the notice of theCommissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam; that pursuant tothe said complaint, a charge memo was also issued to thethen Inspector of Police Smt. K. Vijaya, calling for herexplanation; that basing on the complaint, dated10.02.2006, which was lodged before the first respondent,a case in Crime No.34 of 2006 was registered under thehead ‘Girl Missing’ and that subsequently, as directed bythe Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, the sectionof law was altered to Section 363 I.P.C., on 20.03.2006.

4. In the additional counter-affidavit, filed by theInspector of Police, I Town Police Station,Visakhapatnam, it is brought to the notice of this Court thatthe Passport bearing No.E5244122 of the accused byname Chenna Satish, with whom the missing girl allegedlywent away, on her own volition, was also seized. In thisconnection, to verify the facts, a Special Team was sent toSurat, Gujarat State, where a common friend of the victimgirl and the accused, by name [REDACTED],resides, but no useful information is forthcoming. It is alsostated that they sought permission from the DeputyCommissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, to send theSpecial Team to Goa and Mumbai, where the accusedhad underwent training for Seaman Course and the sameis awaited.

5. In view of this information, we are convinced thatthough enough investigation had been conducted by thepolice so far, however, it requires further investigation.

6. In view of the revelations in the counter-affidavitand also additional counter-affidavit, the writ petition isliable to be closed, with a direction to the Superintendentof Police, Visakhapatnam, to monitor the case personallyand to furnish the progress, if any, to the Registrar(Judicial) of this High Court.

6. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition isclosed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall beno order as to costs.

---------------------

D.S.R.Varma, J.

26[TH] DECEMBER 2006 MAS/KRK

--------------------------

P.Swaroop Reddy, J.