Doosari Grasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI

¶2

*********

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.31459 OF 2025

¶4

Between

¶5

Doosari Grasamma, W/o. Blayya, aged about 55 years, R/at RCM Church, Harijanawada Water Tank, P.Nainavaram, Vijayawada Rural, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 2 others.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.11.2025

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶13

1.	Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?	Yes/No
2.	Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals?	Yes/No
3.	Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?	Yes/No

¶14

____________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J

¶15

_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J

¶16

2

¶17

*** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA**

¶18

+ WRIT PETITION No.31459 OF 2025

¶19

% DATE: 19.11.2025

¶20

Doosari Grasamma, W/o. Blayya, aged about 55 years, R/at RCM Church, Harijanawada Water Tank, P.Nainavaram, Vijayawada Rural, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

... Petitioner

¶22

Vs.

¶23

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

¶24

Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat,

¶25

Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 2 others.

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Jada Sravan Kumar

¶28

^Counsel for respondents

¶29

: The Advocate General

< Gist:

 Head Note:

? CASES REFERRED:

1. 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893

¶34

2. (2020) 14 SCC 161

¶35

3

¶36

APHC010610442025

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶38

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶39

[3558]

¶40

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVE M BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶41

PRESENT

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 31459/2025

¶43

Between:

¶44

DOOSARI GRASAMMA,, W/O BLAYYA, AGED ABO U T 55 YEARS, R/AT RCM CH U RCH HARIJANAWADA WA T ER TANK,P. NAINAVARAM, VI J AYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRI C T ANDHRA PRADESH - 52115 1 .

¶45

...PETITIONER

¶46

AND

¶47

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, H O ME DEPARTMENT, A.P. S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AM A RAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶48

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA.

¶49

THE STATION H O USE OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA II T OWN POLICE STATION, NTR DI S TRICT.

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶51

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased tomay be ple a sed to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the na t ure of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring the action of the respondent aut h orities in tracing the petitioners s on, Mr. Dusari Sudhakar, S/o Balaiah, w ho has been missing since 06.10.2 0 25. Such action is arbitrary, illegal, an d violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the

¶52

4

¶53

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent police authorities to produce the missing person/detenue before this Honble Court forthwith and to pass such

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶58

5

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶61

This writ petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents-Police officials in not tracing the son of the petitioner by name Dusari Sudhakar, who has been missing since 06.10.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought direction to the respondents-Police officials to produce the missing person before the Court and to pass appropriate orders which are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶62

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶63

The petitioner is the mother of the corpus by name Dusari Sudhakar, who is a major and a married person. According to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he had some matrimonial disputes with his legally wedded wife and both of them are living separately and thereafter, the corpus has developed illegal intimacy with a woman by name Divya. While so, it is stated that on 06.10.2025 the corpus has left the house at about 9.00 A.M., to attend his regular car driving duty and thereafter, he did not return home and his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the sister of the corpus lodged a report with II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, on 09.10.2025, stating that the corpus was missing from 06.10.2025. The said report was registered as a case in crime No.412 of 2025 on 09.10.2025 itself by II Town Police Station as “man missing” case. The case is under investigation and the corpus is not traced till now.

¶64

Therefore, alleging that there has been inaction on the part of respondents-Police officials to trace the corpus and to know his whereabouts, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶65

6

¶66

Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the writ petition. He vehemently contends that the present writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable under law. He submits that it is not the case of the petitioner or even the sister of the corpus, who lodged report with the Police that the corpus was illegally confined or detained by any person, so as to maintain a writ for Habeas Corpus. He submits that only when it is the specific case of the petitioner that the corpus has been illegally confined or detained either by the State or its officers or by any private person, that a writ for Habeas Corpus is maintainable. He contends that as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the corpus himself voluntarily left the house and went away and his whereabouts are not known and a “man missing” case was registered by the Police on the report lodged by his sister and as the case is under investigation that the present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the recent judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Simmi Bai v. Shrimaan Police Mahanirikshak Mahodaya and others¹ , wherein, the earlier judgments rendered by the Supreme Court are referred and held that when the corpus has voluntarily left the house and when a “man missing” case was registered and when it is not the case of the petitioner that the corpus was illegally detained or confined by any person that the writ for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable.

¶67

He further submits, on written instructions, that after the crime was registered, investigation is conducted and even the call data details are also collected from the relevant persons by the Police and CCTV footage is also examined and till now, inspite of the best efforts made by the Police that the whereabouts of the corpus could not be traced and still they are making efforts to trace the corpus.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after considering the law laid down in the judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits

¶69

1 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893

¶70

7

¶71

that the writ petition may be disposed of by giving an appropriate direction to the Police to expedite the investigation to trace the whereabouts of the corpus.

¶72

In the light of the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader regarding maintainability of the writ petition, we have carefully gone through the pleadings in the writ petition. As rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is not at all the case of the petitioner that the corpus was illegally confined or detained by the State or its officials or by any person. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the corpus himself has voluntarily left the house on 06.10.2025 at about 9.00 A.M. on the pretext of attending his duty as a car driver and thereafter he did not return home and his whereabouts are not known. If that be the case, as rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader, this writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. Law is clearly well settled in this regard and after referring all the earlier precedents rendered on the point by the Apex Court and other Courts, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the judgment cited above recently held at para No.13 that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable in respect of a person who is simply missing and not in unlawful detention. Further held that unlawful detention is the sine qua non for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus. In the said judgment, the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha² has been referred and considered, wherein, at para No.13 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:

¶73

It is a settled principle of law that a writ of habeas corpus is available as a remedy in all cases where a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty. It is processual writ to secure liberty of the citizen from unlawful or unjustified detention whether a person is detained by the State or is in private detention.

¶74

Finally, after referring all the earlier judicial precedents, at para No.16 of the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it is held that cases of missing persons cannot be brought under the purview of the Habeas Corpus petition.

¶75

2 (2020) 14 SCC 161

¶76

8

¶77

Cases of missing persons are to be registered under regular provisions of Penal Code, 1860 and Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such cases of missing persons. Thus, the constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a habeas corpus petition and the constitutional Court shall not entertain a habeas corpus petition, where there is no allegation of “illegal detention” or suspicion about any such “illegal detention”.

¶78

Therefore, in view of the clear law enunciated in the above plethora of judgments, this Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has now made a futile attempt by contending that the corpus got an illegal affair with a woman by name Divya and that the petitioner is suspecting and got high suspicion that he has been detained by the family members of the said Divya, no factual foundation has been laid for the said plea in the writ petition.

¶79

We have searchingly gone through the entire pleadings of the writ petition. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition stating that the petitioner got high suspicion that the family members of any such Divya might have illegally detained or confined the corpus. Therefore, when there is no factual foundation in the pleadings to that effect, the said new plea sans the pleading in the writ petition cannot be considered and countenanced.

¶80

Therefore, in view of the law as discussed supra , it is held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶81

However, as crime was registered under “man missing” case and as investigation is in progress, the respondents-Police officials are directed to continue with the investigation and make efforts to trace the whereabouts of

¶82

9

¶83

the corpus and take the investigation to its logical conclusion as early as possible. The law has to take its own course as regards the crime that was registered. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶85

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶86

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶87

Date: 19.11.2025 Note : L.R. copy to be marked. (B/o) MDP

Doosari Grasamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doosari Grasamma, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadendla Mabunni Vs the State of Ap

M/s Vennala Poultries, Vs The Union of India

Kampa Sagaramma Vs The Station House Officer

Sri Harsha Innovative Educational Society, Vs The Union of India

Doddi Venkata Lakshmi Vs Canara Bank

Shulam Eswaraiah Vs Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.