Peetani Divya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2025WP/25579/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: habeas corpus, missing person, police inaction, proper investigation, Article 226, Article 14, Article 21, Crime No. 58 of 2020, Peddapuram P.S., DISHA Police Station. Core holding: where the record shows investigation conducted 'on the normal lines', the writ petition does not survive; Court disposed of the petition with a continuing-efforts direction to trace the missing person and liberty to the petitioner to return. No precedent cases cited or discussed; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent (SHO, Peddapuram P.S.) to carry on efforts to trace the missing person and to take a decision, depending on the material available, to pursue or close the case; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court on future difficulties; no order as to costs. ¶¶52

Peetani Divya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 2 and 3 failed to conduct a proper investigation into the disappearance of the petitioner's husband (missing since 24.02.2020; Crime No. 58 of 2020, Peddapuram P.S.), warranting habeas corpus / a direction to investigate.

¶¶39

Court's answer

On going through the record, the Court is satisfied that the 3rd respondent carried out an investigation on the normal lines; consequently nothing further survives in the writ petition.

¶¶51

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to continue efforts to trace the missing person and to take a decision, depending upon the material available, to pursue or close the case.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court in the event of any future difficulties, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati), W.P. No. 25579 of 2020, disposed 07.03.2025 (R. Raghunandan Rao, J. author; Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J. on the Bench). Wife sought habeas corpus/directions under Articles 226, 14 and 21 alleging inaction by the SP and SHO, Peddapuram, over her husband missing since 24.02.2020 (Crime No. 58 of 2020). Record showed counter affidavits (23.01.2021, 01.02.2021, 11.11.2021) and a Circle Inspector's report of 06.01.2025 with case diary: photographs published in newspapers/cable network, motorcycle recovered from one Revu Suri Babu, call details traced to relatives, sister of the missing person examined, and a parallel dowry case (05.08.2020, DISHA P.S., Kakinada) pending. Held: investigation was carried out 'on the normal lines'; nothing survived; petition disposed of with a direction to the SHO to continue tracing efforts and decide, on the material, whether to pursue or close the case; liberty reserved to the petitioner; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25579 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Peetani Divya, W/o. Satish Babu, aged about 23 years,^{ParentsProtection} R/o 2-509/90, Ishwarya Pearl Apts., Iswaraya Nagar, Gaigolupadu Kakinada Rural.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary,^Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police (U), Bhanugudi Junction, Police Quarters, Kakinada 533 503.

¶14

The S. H. O., Peddapuram P. S., E.G.Dt.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent Nos! 2 and 3 to produce Sri Pitani Sathish Babu S/o Narayana Murthy, aged about 30 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set him liberty forthwith, declaring their inaction as violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Counsel for the PetitionerSRI V. S. R. ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: THE ADDL. ADVOCATE general The Court made the following; ORDER

¶18

¶19

APHC010383702020

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3508] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 25579/2020

Between:

Peetani Divya

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶30

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.VS R ANJANEYALU

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶35

The Court made the following Order: (Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that her husband was missing from 24.02.2020 and no action^isbeingtaken by the respondents 2 and 3, to investigate the matter,^{despitelodgingofa} numbered as Crime No.58 of complaint, dated 26.02.2020, which was

¶37

2020 with the 3'’'^ respondent.

¶38

2 RRR,J& MRKJ W.P.No.25579 of 2020

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Sri P. Satish Babu had left from home, on 24.02.2020, at 2.00 p.m on a motor cycle and had not returned back subsequently. Thereafter, her father-in-law filed a complaint, before the 3"'^ respondent, on 26.02.2020. As investigation was not being carried, the petitioner is said to have filed a complaint, on 16.03.2020, before the 2""^ respondent-Superintend^antof Police. She also contends that the vehicle of the husband of the petitioner was available at the police station of the O"'' respondent. However, the 3'^^ respondent does not answer as to how the motor vehicle is at the police station. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in conducting a proper investigation into the matter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and for a direction to the respondents to undertake a proper investigation in the matter. The Circle Inspector, Peddapuram Circle filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 3"'^ respondent, on 23.01.2021, as well as on 01.02.2021. An additional counter affidavit was filed on 11.11.2021 by the Circle Inspector, Peddapuram Circle. Thereafter, a report was filed by the 3’’'^ respondent on 06.01.2025.

¶40

In the counter affidavit, filed by the Circle Inspector on 23.01.2021, the facts which came out during the investigation^aresetout. The Circle Inspector states that the husband of the petitioner had created an impression, with his family that he was working in RAK Ceramic

¶41

¶42

RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 2020

¶43

factory, Samalkota. However, the fact was that he was not working in the said factory. The father-in-law, having come to know of this fact, when he visited the factory of RAK Ceramics, had then approached the police with the said complaint. It is stated that photographs of the missing person were circulated widely including publication in local newspapers as well as broadcasting the same in the local cable network. It also appears that the petitioner had also filed a dowry harassment case against her husband and in-laws and others, on 05.08.2020, and the same is pending before the DISHA Police Station, Kakinada. The motor cycle of the missing person was recovered from the place near Venkatapathi Raju Cheruvu, situated nearby Vijayalakshmi Poultry farm, DB Road Peddapuram from one Revu Suri Babu. Upon being questioned,^thesaid Suri Babu gave a statement that the motor cycle had been parked near the tank for more than five days and that he had informed the police about the said motor cycle. The call details of the telephone number of the petitioner as well as her husband were examined. The telephone numbers mentioned in the call detail report were traced^{totherelativesof} the missing person and were verified. Further, details of investigation were set out.

¶44

The counter affidavit filed on 01.02.2021 is a copy of the Counter affidavit filed on 23.01.2021.

¶45

¶46

RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 20,0

¶47

The petitioner filed a reply to this counter stating that the SDPO had issued memo, dated 16.11.2020, instructing the Circle Inspector to conduct the investigation in terms of the guidelines set out in the memo. However, none of these guidelines were followed by the 3 rd respondent. Thereafter, written instructions were submitted by the SubInspector of Police., Peddapuram Police Station to the learned Government Pleader who placed them before this Court. These written instructions essentially state that enquiries were being conducted despite which no fruitful information was forthcoming. This Court had sought a further report as to the steps taken for investigating^thecase of the missing person. In compliance of these directions, a report was filed by the Circle Inspector, on 06.01.2025. This report enclosed the case diary setting out the statements made by various persons including the petitioner. The sister of the missing person was also examined on account of a doubt raised by the petitioner. It is stated that none of these enquiries have resulted in any fruitful information being obtained.

¶48

Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in the matter would contend that the investigation^{hasnotbeencarried} out with full force and vigour and the apparent disinterest in the investigation of the case is the reason why the missing person could not Retraced.

¶49

¶50

RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 2020

¶51

rd Having gone through the record, we are satisfied that the 3 respondent has carried out an investigation, on the normal lines. In such circumstances, nothing further would survive in the present writ petition.

¶52

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3 respondent to carry on his efforts to trace the missing person and to take a decision, depending upon the material available, to pursue the case or close the case.

¶53