Mettu Koti Reddy, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2025WP/2858/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 2858 of 2025; decided 11.02.2025; bench R Raghunandan Rao & Harinath.N; habeas corpus; Article 226; illegal detention by private party (respondent 6, Dhadi Shankara Rao); detenue released via hospital permission; no police complaint lodged; writ petition closed without costs; liberty to approach police; passport recovery on complaint; MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam; Palnadu district petitioner.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted: the writ petition was closed without costs as the detenue was already at liberty, with liberty left to the petitioner or detenue to file complaints before the police, who shall act accordingly; recovery of the passport made contingent on such a complaint; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed as a sequel. ¶¶44

Mettu Koti Reddy, Vs The state of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's son, Mettu Mohan Krishna Reddy, allegedly abducted and detained by the 6th respondent on 25.01.2025, and to return his original certificates, passports, cheques and promissory notes.

¶¶17

Court's answer

The detenue was produced before the Court and stated that he had come out of the detention by the 6th respondent when he was permitted to go to the hospital where he was working.

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

The detenue stated that he had not given any complaint to the police regarding the alleged detention.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

Since the detenue was already set at liberty, the writ petition was closed, leaving it open to the petitioner or the detenue to file necessary complaints before the police, who shall take action accordingly.ratio¶¶44
Regarding the detenue's statement that his passport remained with the respondent, the Court observed that necessary steps would be taken by the police authorities if an appropriate complaint were filed.obiter¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a father seeking production of his son, allegedly abducted and detained by the 6th respondent at Visakhapatnam since 25.01.2025, along with return of certificates, passports, cheques and promissory notes. The detenue was produced before the Division Bench and stated that he had come out of the detention when permitted to go to the hospital where he worked, and that he had lodged no complaint with the police. As the detenue was already at liberty, the High Court closed the writ petition without costs, leaving the petitioner or detenue free to file complaints before the police, who were to take action accordingly; recovery of the detenue's passport was left contingent on such a complaint. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed as a sequel.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 2858 OF 2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mettu Koti Reddy, S/o Mettu. Venkateswara Reddy, aged about 49 years, R/o Chirumamilla village, Nadendia Mandal, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh-522234.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district.

¶15

The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra^Pradesh. 3. The District Collector and Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 5. The Station House officer, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. 6. Dhadi Shankara Rao, S/o Dhadi Gopala Naidu, R/o. 2-4H-4,^EWS- 69,Sec-6, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the son of the petitioner named Mettu. Mohan Krishna Reddy abducted by the 6th respondent from the petitioner's rental house (own house of 6th respondent) situated in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam,^which is territorial

¶18

O', jurisdiction of MVP police station on 25.01.2025, before this Hon'ble Court and^.. handover the custody by duly return the original certificates, passpprts. Cheques and promissory notes.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.6:—

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

APHC010053832025

¶22

[3488]

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 2858/2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

Mettu Koti Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

1.METTACHENDRASEKHAR RAO

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that his son had been^illegally detained by the 6*'' respondent on 25.01.2025, and steps are not being taken by the^police authorities to get his son released from such illegal^detention.

¶40

The detenue is presently before the Court. On being^{asked,hestates} that the 6'*^ respondent had detained him illegally^{on25.01.2025andhehad} come out of the said detention when he was permitted to go to the hospital

¶41

¶42

! I

¶43

where he was working. He states that he has not given any complaint in this regard to the police.

¶44

In view of the fact that the detenue is set at liberty, this Writ Petition ISi Closed leaving it open to the petitioner or the detenue to file necessary complaints before the police and they shall take action accordingly.

¶45

The detenue also states that his passport is still with the respondent, If that is so, necessary steps would be taken by the police authorities if appropriate complaint being filed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

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

¶47

SD/- V.SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTAN?" REG. trar //TRUE COPY// SECT! OFFICER

¶48

¶49

The Principle Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district.

¶50

The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

¶51

The District Collector and Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶52

The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.

¶53

The Station House officer, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

¶54

One CC to Sri Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶56

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/02/2025

ORDER

WP.No.2858 of 2025

of
X 0 7 MAR 2025
^ Current Secuon

¶64

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Mettu Koti Reddy, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mettu Koti Reddy, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Bhagya Lakshmi, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.K.Surya Prakash, Vs The Apspdcl Contractors Welfare Association

Akkineni Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Kondapalli Srinivas

A.P.Choudhary & 3 Others Vs M.Chinna Rao

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Esskay Shipping Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Paleti Hanumantha Rao Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer & Another