Dismissed¶¶39

Panchaparvala Rajyalakshmi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Oct 2025WP/27156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Missing husband; habeas corpus not maintainable for a missing person — writ of mandamus is the remedy; Article 226 Constitution of India; follows Simmi Bai (2025 SCC OnLine MP 893, MP HC) relying on Kanu Sanyal ((1973) 2 SCC 674); FCOP No. 665/2016 dismissed 07.05.2021; complaint dated 29.03.2025 registered as Crime No. 160/2025, Bhavanipuram P.S., NTR District; police inaction alleged; writ petition closed, remedies left open, no costs; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION NO: 27156/2025; decided 07.10.2025; R. Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was closed leaving the petitioner free to avail her remedies in accordance with law, with no order as to costs. ¶¶39

Panchaparvala Rajyalakshmi Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the writ petition was closed leaving the petitioner free to avail her remedies in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the official respondents to trace out and find the petitioner's missing husband is maintainable, it having been contended (and accepted by this Court) that in a missing-person case only a writ of mandamus is maintainable. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

Taking the same view as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Simmi Bai (which itself relied on Kanu Sanyal, Supreme Court), this Court holds that in the case of a missing person a writ of mandamus alone is maintainable and the matter cannot be taken up by way of a writ of habeas corpus.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

The present case is a case of a missing person and not a case of illegal detention by one person or the other; consequently the writ of habeas corpus does not apply.

¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 27156 of 2025, decided 07.10.2025; bench: R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ., order per R. Raghunandan Rao, J. Panchaparvala Rajyalakshmi sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the official respondents, particularly the Superintendent of Police, NTR District and the SHO, Bhavanipuram P.S., to produce her husband Panchaparvala Donthuleswararao, reported missing. Background: the husband's FCOP No. 665 of 2016 (dissolution of marriage, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada) stood dismissed on 07.05.2021; he was said to be living with another lady whose complaint dated 29.03.2025 was registered as Crime No. 160 of 2025 at Bhavanipuram P.S. The Learned Government Pleader disputed maintainability, placing reliance on Simmi Bai vs. Shrimaan Police Mahanirikshak Mahodaya and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893 (Madhya Pradesh High Court), which relied on Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674. Adopting that view, the Court held that where a person is merely missing — not illegally detained — only a writ of mandamus is maintainable, not a writ of habeas corpus. The writ petition was closed, remedies left open to the petitioner, with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010531212025

¶2

[3529]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 27156/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

PANCHAPARVALA RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O. PANCHAPARVALA DONTHULESWARARAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 2-30-A, ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE, TARAKATURU, GUDURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 3.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, . BHAVANIPURAM P.S., NTR DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one

¶20

¶21

in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents particularly respondent No. 4 and 5th to produce Panchaparvala Donthuleswararao S/o Panchaparvala Venkata Harinadha, aged about 47 years, resident of 76-14227/A, Teachers Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, forthwith before this Honble court and be pleased to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶28

( per Hon’ble Justice Sri R.Raghunandana Rao)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the office of learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the official respondents to trace out and find her husband who is said to be missing.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that her husband had filed FCOP No.665 of 2016 against her in the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for dissolution of their marriage. However, this petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 07.05.2021. She contends that her husband, started living with another lady. This lady, in turn, is said to have given a complaint to the Bhavanipuram Police Station, NTR District, that the husband of the petitioner is missing. This complaint, dated 29.03.2025, came to be registered as Crime No.160 of 2025.

¶32

The petitioner has now approached this Court with the contention that the police authorities are not taking adequate steps to ascertain the actual facts and to trace and find her husband.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, disputes the maintainability of the present writ petition relying on the judgment of the High

¶34

¶35

Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Simmi Bai vs. Shrimaan Police

¶36

Mahanirikshak Mahodaya and Others¹ .

¶37

In this judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling,² had taken the view that a Writ of Mandamus is only maintainable in case of a missing person and it cannot be taken up by way of a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶38

With the respectable arguments, this Court has taken the said view. The present case is regarding missing of a person and is not the case of illegal detention by one person or the other.

¶39

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail her remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

________________________

¶42

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶43

________________

¶44

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶45

Date: 07.10.2025 KA