Telangana High Court
Gandikota Rajesh vs The State Of Telangana on 8 November, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.31267 OF 2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr.Gunda Gopikrishna, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr.Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.10 and Mr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3, 6 & 8. Perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus so far as the release of the detenue viz., Upara Rachel, aged around 21 years is concerned.
3. From the perusal of the pleadings what is evidently clear is that the petitioner herein claims to be the husband of the so called detenue. The petitioner herein is a resident of Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh, the detenue viz., Upara Rachel is also a resident of the same district so also the parents of the detenue are the 2 residents of same village. As per the pleadings, the petitioner and the so called detenue have got married on 18.07.2024 and the marriage took place at Gunadakonda in Vijaywada.
4. From the aforesaid given facts it is apparent that the petitioner and the family of the detenue so also the place at which the petitioner and the detenue have got married are all residents of State of Andhra Pradesh. The pleadings if to be accepted, the detenue if at all is said to be in illegal confinement and illegal detention at the hands of respondent No.12 and his family members are all residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if at all, if the petitioner intends to file a writ petition seeking issuance of habeas corpus, ought to have filed in the High Court having jurisdiction of Krishna District, where the petitioner as also the detenue and the detenees resides. For the purpose of creating cause of action so that this Court may have jurisdiction, the petitioner seems to have alleged that he is a temporary residence of Telangana and the so called abduction is said to have happened in the area that falls under the 3 territories of Telangana. However, there is no evidence for the same.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that this Court lacks jurisdiction in entertaining the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate relief that he seeks for in the concerned High Court having jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J __________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 08.11.2024 Note: Issue C.C. today.
B/o aqs