Dismissed

Pandarangi Kondamma v. Station House Officer

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012WP/33427/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking production of her son and two granddaughters, allegedly held in illegal custody by a police officer and his associate. The court found the petition frivolous, noted the detenus' denial of illegal detention, and permitted them to live independently under police protection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable by petitioner to the first detenue.

Pandarangi Kondamma Vs Station House Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 33427 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pandarangi Kondamma

¶9

..... Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Station House Officer Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city & District and others

¶12

..... Respondents

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶15

Seeking production of Smt. Shinagam Anasuya @ Pandrangi Anasuya and her two children Shingam Indu, aged 10 years and Shingam Sri Krishna Koushik, aged 7

¶16

years, before this court, who are alleged to be in the illegal custody of the second respondent herein, the present writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner, who is mother of first detenue and grandmother of alleged detenus 2 and 3.

¶17

It is stated that the first detenue married brother of the petitioner on 9.3.2000 as per Hindu customs and rites and after the birth of the detenus 2 and 3, differences arose between the couple and to resolve the same, in the first instance they approached a Social Service Organisation and later the second respondent, on whose advise the first detenue is to said to have filed OP No. 581 of 2008 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking judicial separation, which was decreed exparte on 10.07.2009. Thereafter, the second respondent is said to have telephoned to the first detenue’s husband i.e. brother of the petitioner, to come to a hotel with cash of Rs.15.00 lakhs for divorce and asked him to sign on the divorce settlement. On coming to know the same, the petitioner with elders reached the hotel and prevented the first detenue from signing the divorce settlement and brought her to the petitioner’s house. It is stated that the second respondent was in contact with the first detenue over phone. While so, on 18.06.2010, the second respondent took the detenus to an unknown place and on enquiry, he refused to divulge their place of hideout. As such, the petitioner lodged complaint with the first

¶18

respondent on 1.6.2011 and a case in Cr. No.243 of 2011 came to be registered under the head ‘Woman Missing, Girl Missing and Boy Missing’. It is the case of the petitioner that though the first respondent is vested with all the powers to investigate and arrive at the truth and trace the detenus, he failed to discharge his obligation to trace them under the influence of Respondent No.2.

¶19

In response to the notices issued by this court, both the respondents have filed their counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent is that on 4.2.2011 the petitioner lodged complaint about the missing of the detenus suspecting the involvement of the second respondent inasmuch as in the year 2010, he had taken the alleged detenus to an unknown place. Consequently a case in Cr. No. 243 of 2011 was registered and all steps to trace the detenus were taken by him and he also constituted team to trace them. He also examined the second respondent, who has denied his involvement in the missing of the alleged detenus.

¶20

The second respondent was an Advocate as on the date of filing the above OP and after the OP was decreed, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Judicial Department. He denied the material allegations leveled against him in the writ affidavit and stated that since he filed vakalath on behalf of the first detenue, the petitioner

¶21

with an intention to wreck vengeance against him, has leveled un-frivolous allegations and he was taken aback when the IV Town Police, Visakhapantam enquired with him about the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

¶22

Though notice in the above writ petition was ordered as long back as on 19.12.2011 and though the matter underwent adjournments twice, the alleged detenus could not be traced, as such, on 17.7.2012, this court directed the first respondent to produce the alleged detenus.

¶23

Today, the alleged detenus are produced before this court along with the statement of the first detenue, recorded by the police, wherein she has stated that the petitioner is her stepmother and the petitioner has nothing to do with the family life of the alleged detenus. The first detenue is a major and she is working in a School and living independently with her children, inasmuch as she is unable to bear the torture meted out to her by the writ petitioner and her husband. The first detenue has categorically denied that she is neither in the custody nor in the hideout of the second respondent. A perusal of the material on record does not suggest that there is illegal detention of the detenus by the second respondent with the connivance of the first respondent, as alleged. The first detenue is quite categorical about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her in the hands of her husband and the writ petitioner, driving her to part with their

¶24

company and to live independently. Thus, prima facie, we are of the opinion that a frivolous writ petition is filed by the petitioner. The first detenue expressed her apprehension that her husband and the petitioner would again harass and ill-treat them in future. In view of this apprehension, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam are directed to take necessary steps in providing protection to the alleged detenus.

¶25

Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the writ petition should not only be dismissed but the petitioner should be mulcted with costs so as to deter her from resorting upon such frivolous litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we quantify the costs at Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the first detenue, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and a certificate to this effect shall be filed forthwith before the Registrar (Judicial).

¶26

With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed with costs as above.

¶27

Justice N.V. Ramana

¶28

__________________ Justice P.Durga Prasad

¶29

July 27, 2012 MAS.

Pandarangi Kondamma v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandarangi Kondamma v. Station House Officer

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

Kanuku Sagar, (A-1), Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Sujatha Sahukar, W/o. Suresh Kumar Sahukar Vs The Government of A.P.

Chandragiri Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of A.P.

Dasari Simhachalam, (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

Alla Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Dasarajula Chakali Venkatswamy, (A1) Vs The State of A.P.