Gandikota Rajesh vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4362 Tel

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

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

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