Allowed

Nakkala Kumari, v. The Superintendent of Police

Telangana HC21 Jul 2009WP/9941/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a writ of Habeas Corpus directing police respondents to intensify efforts to trace and produce the petitioner's missing husband. The Court rejected the prayer to implead alleged abettors but allowed the petitioner to approach the court under Section 200 CrPC if dissatisfied. Orders respondents to submit monthly status reports.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of Police to intensify efforts to trace the alleged detenu, produce him before the Court, and submit a status report once a month to the Registrar.

Nakkala Kumari, Vs The Superintendent… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9941 of 2009

¶6

Between: Nakkala Kumari, W/o. Nakkala Subba Reddy, R/o. H.No.40/92, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty, Kadapa District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa, 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Rayachoti (Urban), Kadapa District.

¶10

3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayachoti (Urban) P.S. Kadapa District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the petitioner husband Mr. Nakkala Subba Reddy before this Hon'ble Court and release him forthwith and further direct the respondents to investigate on the complaints dated 16.2.2009 and 23.3.2009 on the file of the respondents in accordance with law and award compensation and costs for the hardship and mental agony caused to petitioner by the in action of the respondents and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.9941 of 2009

¶18

ORAL ORDER: (per THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R VARMA)

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

¶20

2. The petitioner complains the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not tracing out her husband.

¶21

3. The petitioner, Smt. Nakkala Kumari, filed this writ petition alleging that her husband, by name Nakkala Subba Reddy, was abducted by some of his friends namely; Mr.Nagarjuna Reddy and Venkateswara Reddy belongs to Chennamukkapalle, Mr.Bhaskara Reddy belongs to Tirupathi, Mr.Dorababu, Chinnappa Reddy, belongs to Nandyal, Mr.Subba Rao belongs to East Godavari, Mr.Anantha Reddy belongs to Peeleru, Mr.Ramaraju belongs to Rayachoti, Mr.Venkatramireddi belongs to Kothapeta, Rayachoti, Mr.Ramunjala Reddi of Gorlamudivedu Village, Rayachoti Mandal, Mr.Ramachandra and Shaik Khasim belongs to Rayachoti and Mr.Amarnatha Reddy of Hyderabad and some others, who are doing business in and around Kadapa district and also at Hyderabad.

¶22

4. On 19.12.2008 morning, one Mangali Ramachandra came to her house and called her husband by saying that their friends were waiting for him on the road and her husband went along with the said person; that since then, he did not turn up; that later her husband made a telephone call demanding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/to be paid to Amarnath Reddy and that she also received another phone call saying that her husband would be released if an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the account of one Nagarjuna

¶23

Reddy, otherwise her husband would be killed. The complaint given by the petitioner was registered as Crime No.27 of 2009. It is to be seen that the missing of alleged detenu was with effect from 19.12.2008 whereas the complaint was lodged on 17.02.2009.

¶24

5. The Station House Officer, Rayachoti (Urban) Police Station, Kadapa District, filed counter-affidavit, stating categorical account of efforts made by them to the effect that as and when they trace the detenu, the same would be informed to this Court; that, during the course of investigation, a radio message was flashed to all the police stations in Rayachoti urban; that he also circulated pamphlets by giving descriptive particulars of the missing man in various places of Kadapa District; that he personally visited Chinnamandem, Sambeypalli, Kadapa and Pulivendula to trace the alleged detenu, but all the efforts are in vain; that special teams were also formed and sent to all probable places in and around Kadapa District to trace out the alleged detenu; that, in the said process of investigation, he examined the complainant as well as her relatives and they corroborated with the contents of the F.I.R; that the investigation reveals that the alleged detenu had been collecting lakhs of rupees from the alleged accused by believing them that he is having a metal bell, which attracts and pulls the rice, and the said instrument costs crores of rupees in foreign countries; that the investigation further reveals that the alleged detenu alleged to have entered into an agreement along with the suspected accused with Reserve Bank of India; that the copy of the said document is also filed along with counter-affidavit and that a close perusal of the said agreement clearly shows that it was a fictitious and forged document. Therefore, the police were under the impression that the said document was forged document and the alleged detenu appears to have cheated the innocent people, particularly the alleged suspects, in the above crime.

¶25

6. Notwithstanding the said allegations, made against each other, it is needless to say that, in the investigation process, it is essential for the police to investigate into the matter since it is their duty and make all possible attempts to trace the alleged detenu. But, the same could not be done, despite various efforts, which have been brought to the notice of this Court, in the counter-

¶26

affidavit.

¶27

7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he wants to implead the alleged abettors as parties to this writ petition.

¶28

8. In this connection, it is to be noted that the information, which was made to the police, was registered as F.I.R.. in Crime No.27 of 2008 and the same is pending investigation. Since the names of the alleged abettors have already been stated in the complaint, we are of the view that there is no need to bring them on record of this writ petition. The limited scope of this writ petition is to direct the respondents to trace the missing person and produce him before this Court.

¶29

9. Therefore, suffice it to direct the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, to intensify the efforts to trace the alleged detenu and produce him before this Court. Till such time, he/she shall submit a status report to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, once in every month.

¶30

10. It is made clear that if the petitioner is not convinced with the investigation that was taken up by the police, she can as well avail the remedy, provided under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

11. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶32

_______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶33

_________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 21^ST JULY 2009 KTL/KRK

Nakkala Kumari, v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakkala Kumari, v. The Superintendent of Police

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

Kommalapudi Gunnamma, Vs The Superintendent of Police

V Tulsi Ram Vs The state of Ap

Anitha Vs The Superintendent of Police

H. Sita Ratnam, Vs The Commissioner

Mohammed Abdul Rahman Siddiqui Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramu Vs The Commissioner of Police