Disposed¶40

Lolamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025WPHC/89/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: habeas corpus; missing person; W.P.H.C.; Article 226; Article 227; Constitution of India; Madivala police station; complaint dated 23.07.2024; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; disposed of with directions to cooperate with investigation. Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ. (judgment per Anu Sivaraman, J.). Parties: Lolamma W/o Davis (petitioner); State of Karnataka Home Department, Commissioner Bengaluru City, SHO Madivala Police Station, and Jomy Pauly (respondents). No precedents cited; no monetary amounts involved.

What did the court decide?

No habeas corpus relief granted; writ petition disposed of with directions that the petitioner and respondent No.4 cooperate with the ongoing investigation and that the police take appropriate steps to trace the missing person without delay. ¶40

Lolamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7579-DB W.P.H.C. No.89/2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

W.P.H.C. NO.89/2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LOLAMMA W/O DAVIS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MOYALAN HOUSE UNITY ROAD, KURIACHIRA THRISSUR-680 006.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VINCENT P.J. ADV., [ABSENT])

¶13

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MADIWALA POLICE STATION HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIWALA BENGALURU-560068 REPRESENTED BY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:7579-DB W.P.H.C. No.89/2024

¶20

MADIWALA CITY POLICE.

¶21

JOMY PAULY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O PAULY KATTOKARAN 4TH CROSS ROAD, TAVAREKERE MARUTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. MURTUZA ALI BAIG, ADV., FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER BY NAME MIMI DEVIS BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT & ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

( PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN )

¶30

This Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

"i) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order, directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter by name Mimi Devis before this Honorable Court.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7579-DB W.P.H.C. No.89/2024

¶33

ii) Grant such other relief as this Honorable Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

When the matter is taken up, there is no appearance for the petitioner. However, a status report by

¶35

way of an affidavit has been placed on record by the learned SPP. It is stated that respondent No.4, who is the husband of the missing person had filed a complaint on 23.07.2024 at the Madivala police station alleging the missing of the writ petitioner's daughter. It is submitted that earnest attempts have been taken to trace out the missing person and that it is revealed that there were serious financial irregularities which were alleged to have been committed by the missing person.

¶36

Respondent No.4 has also placed a detailed

¶37

affidavit on record and contends that the writ petitioner's daughter has gone away from her place of residence in Bengaluru on her own volition and that there is no question of any illegal detention.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7579-DB W.P.H.C. No.89/2024

¶39

4. Having considered the contentions advanced

¶40

and in view of the status report as well as the affidavit placed on record by respondent No.4, we find that the complaint preferred by respondent No.4 is being enquired into by the police. The enquiry and investigation into the complaint can proceed. The writ petitioner as well as respondent No.4 shall cooperate with the investigation and appropriate steps to trace out the missing person shall be taken by the police, without delay. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶41

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶43

ABK

¶44

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Lolamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lolamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Rajavardhan Sanchi Vasant Vs the State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

The Tahsildar Vs Sri K B Shashidhara

The Executive Engineer Vs S R Prahlad Rao Dead by L R.S

Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. Vs the Director