SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Kar) 736

High Court of Karnataka
N. KUMAR, K. BILLAPPA, JJ.
Usharani
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Others
WPHC No. 72 of 2014
Decided On: 24-04-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shankarappa, Advocate.
For the Respondents: E.S. Indiresh, HCGP.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226 & 227: [N. Kumar & H. Billappa, JJ] Writ of Habeas Corpus - Direction sought to the Police authorities to produce the husband of the petitioner before the Court in person - No averments in the petition that the petitioner’s husband is detained either by the Police or by any other person - Maintainability of Writ of Habeas Corpus - Held, The condition precedent for presenting a petition for habeas corpus is the person for whose release, the petition is filed must be in detention. He must be under detention by the authorities or by any private individual. It is the "detention" legal or illegal which gives the cause of action for maintaining the Writ of Habeas Corpus. If the averments in the Writ Petition read as a whole do not disclose the detention, in other words, if there is no allegation of illegal detention, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected in limine. The principles of Order VII Rule 11 CPC equally apply to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. On facts, Investigation of records produced by the Police before the Court reveals that the petitioner murdered her husband by taking the assistance of her friends and burnt the dead body. The petitioner has made an attempt to over-reach the Court. If ultimately what the Police say is true and proved in a Court of law after trial, it is clear that by initiating the proceedings of Habeas Corpus the petitioner is not only trying to shield herself, but also attempted to mislead the Police. It is the experience of the Court that this type of frivolous petitions in the recent days is on the rise. Because it is a habeas corpus petition and the personal liberty of a citizen is involved, the Court being the Constitutional Court has to reach out to the rescue of those innocent people. Court is giving top priority to these cases.

Judgment :-

1. This petition is filed by the wife for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the police authorities to produce her husband-Muniraju before this Court in person.

2. The averments in the writ petition in brief, are as under:-

The petitioner is permanently residing at Bharathi Layout, SG Palya, Bangalore. She is the wife of Sri Muniraju and they have three children by name (1) Priyanka, aged about 21 years studying third year BE., at PES College, Banashankari, Bangalore; (2) Sneha, aged about 19 years, studying in first year BE., at PES College, Electronics City, Bangalore and (3) Prajwal Raj, aged about 9 years, studying in 4th standard in Christ School, The husband of the petitioner by name Muniraju is working at Madiwala as a mediator in auto consultancy and leading a happy life without any hurdles till the date of his whereabouts becoming unknown on 21.03.2014. The petitioner is residing with her husband and children for the last 20 years. On 21.03.2014., her husband left the house at about 11.30 am to Madiwala in his business place, close to his house by saying that he will not come for lunch in the noon and would return home only in the evening. She waited till 9 p.m. When he did not turn up she gave a call to his mobile number 7411956899. The said mobile was switched off. She continued to give a call for more than half an hour. The mobile was not switched on. Therefore she was shocked and gave a call to all the relatives and friends and known people regarding the whereabouts of her husband. When she, her friends and relatives could not trace her husband, she lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police (third respondent) on 23.3.2014 with all information and to take necessary action to find out the whereabouts of her husband. On her complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 190/2014 and they assured her that her husband would be traced in two days. After two days, when she approached the police, they did not respond properly. Therefore, she requested her relative and cousin, Anand Kumar, Mahesh Charan, Arun Vardhan, Who are all working for and studying in private concerns and colleges, to find out the call records of Muniraju. All of them requested third respondent to find out call logs, tower locations and voice records to trace the whereabouts of Muniraju. After five days, the police collected the call records of the mobile number of Muniraju. It was found that one Sri Gangadhar gave a call to Muniraju at 1.52 pm on 21.03.2014 and thereafter, it was switched off. From the call records, it was found that on the next day at about 9.51 am it was switched on and it was switched off by 9.58 am. During the said time, the tower was located at Kodihalli, Paragi Mandal, Hindupur Taluk, Ananthpur District and therefore, the petitioner and her relatives requested the third respondent to act upon the investigation immediately by way of collecting the voice records and tower locations. The respondents did not show any interest. Because of the non co-operation of the police, she tried to lodge a complaint with respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the third respondent is threatening the petitioner and children not to go before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he has also threatened the petitioner saying that if she pursues further, she will face grave consequences. The third respondent Sri. Rajesh said that Muniraju was not a good person and owed money to several persons and let him go missing. He also said as to why he should go behind the said person unnecessarily. The third respondent, instead of searching for the missing person, is scolding the petitioner and her children, relatives and has not properly responded.

It is a matter of one hour for the police to collect the voice records of the mobile of the missing person. 3ut; the third respondent police has not collected the same even as on today nor tried to do the needful to trace the missing person. Therefore the petitioner and her relatives have printed pamphlets








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top