Disposed

Priyadharshini, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WPHC/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking production and safety of her partner, Omar Mirza, residing in Saudi Arabia. The court accepted counsel's submission that the petitioner and detenu are living together, rendering the writ petition unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.

Priyadharshini, Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20238-DB WPHC No. 39 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶9

WP(HC) NO. 39 OF 2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PRIYADHARSHINI D/O SRI ANBUCHEZHIAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT 30 VITA LAGOS, 4 YEMALUR MAIN ROAD KEMPAPURA, BELLANDUR BANGALORE – 560037.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SMT. KSHAMA NARGUND – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VAKKUND SONATAI GANAPATRAO - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MARATHALLI P .S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE.

¶17

MR. BARKAT MIRZA S/O UMAR MIRZA WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B A BELLIYAPPA – SPP A/W SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR – HCGP; SRI ANKITH S REDDY – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20238-DB WPHC No. 39 of 2024

¶21

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE MR.OMAR MIRZA BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TOWARDS ENSURING THE SAFETY OF MR.OMAR MIRZA AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTIONS OR JUDGMENTS.

¶22

THIS WP(HC), COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Smt kshama Nargund, learned counsel is present and represents Sri Vakkund Sonatai Ganapatrao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Ankith S Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No 2 appears through video conferencing. Sri B A Belliappa, learned SPP for respondent No 1 is present.

¶25

Petitioner namely – Priyadharshini D / o

¶26

Anbuchezhain has preferred this writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No 2 – Barkat Mirza who is no other than father-in-law of the petitioner. Presently, respondent No 2 is residing in Saudi Arabia.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20238-DB WPHC No. 39 of 2024

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and Mr Omar Mirza who is son of respondent No 2 are living in relationship. Mr Omar Mirza is originally a citizen of India but was a resident of Saudi Arabia. He is B.E graduate from Vellore Institute of Technology in the field of Mechanical Engineering.

¶29

Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to refer Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as “When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact”.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking disposal of the writ petition since the petitioner

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:20238-DB WPHC No. 39 of 2024

¶33

and detenue – Mr Omar Mirza are living together

¶34

presently. Therefore, memo is placed on record.

¶35

Hence, writ petition do not survive for consideration.

¶36

Consequently, writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Priyadharshini, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyadharshini, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri M Idinabba

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt B N Pramila Devi

M/S Alpha Digital Health Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hanto Workspace Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Sri Jagadeesh Singh

S Pratheesha Vs Sudhindra Shekar

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. U.P Verghese