IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25579 OF 2020 Between: Peetani Divya, W/o. Satish Babu, aged about 23 years, Parents Protection R/o 2-509/90, Ishwarya Pearl Apts., Iswaraya Nagar, Gaigolupadu Kakinada Rural. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Superintendent of Police (U), Bhanugudi Junction, Police Quarters, Kakinada 533 503. 3. The S. H. O., Peddapuram P. S., E.G.Dt. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent Nos! 2 and 3 to produce Sri Pitani Sathish Babu S/o Narayana Murthy, aged about 30 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set him liberty forthwith, declaring their inaction as violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner- Counsel for the Respondent Nos. SRI V. S. R. ANJANEYALU 1 to 3: THE ADDL. ADVOCATE general The Court made the following; ORDER I APHC010383702020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25579/2020 [3508] Between: ...PETITIONER Peetani Divya AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VS R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that her husband was missing from 24.02.2020 and no action is being taken by the respondents 2 and 3, to investigate the matter, despite lodging of a numbered as Crime No.58 of complaint, dated 26.02.2020, which was 2020 with the 3'’'^ respondent. 2 RRR,J& MRKJ W.P.No.25579 of 2020 The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Sri P. Satish Babu had left from home, on 24.02.2020, at 2.00 p.m on a motor cycle and had not returned back subsequently. Thereafter, her father-in-law filed a complaint, before the 3"'^ respondent, on 26.02.2020. As investigation was not being carried, the petitioner is said to have filed a complaint, on 16.03.2020, before the 2""^ respondent-Superintend ant of Police. She also contends that the vehicle of the husband of the petitioner was available at the police station of the O"'' respondent. However, the 3'^^ respondent does not answer as to how the motor vehicle is at the police station. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in conducting a proper investigation into the matter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and for a direction to the respondents to undertake a investigation in the matter. The Circle Inspector, Peddapuram Circle filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 3"'^ respondent, on 23.01.2021, as well as on 01.02.2021. An additional counter affidavit was filed on 11.11.2021 by the Circle Inspector, Peddapuram Circle. Thereafter, a report was filed by the 3’’'^ respondent on 06.01.2025. 2. proper 3. In the counter affidavit, filed by the Circle Inspector 23.01.2021, the facts which came out during the investigation are set out. The Circle Inspector states that the husband of the petitioner had created an impression, with his family that he was working in RAK Ceramic on 3 RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 2020 factory, Samalkota. However, the fact was that he was not working in the said factory. The father-in-law, having come to know of this fact, when he visited the factory of RAK Ceramics, had then approached the police with the said complaint. It is stated that photographs of the missing person were circulated widely including publication in local newspapers as well as broadcasting the same in the local cable network. It also appears that the petitioner had also filed a dowry harassment case against her husband and in-laws and others, on 05.08.2020, and the same is pending before the DISHA Police Station, Kakinada. The motor cycle of the missing person was recovered from the place near Venkatapathi Raju Cheruvu, situated nearby Vijayalakshmi Poultry farm, DB Road Peddapuram from one Revu Suri Babu. Upon being questioned, the said Suri Babu gave a statement that the motor cycle had been parked near the tank for more than five days and that he had informed the police about the said motor cycle. The call details of the telephone number of the petitioner as well as her husband were examined. The telephone numbers mentioned in the call detail report were traced to the relatives of the missing person and were verified. Further, details of investigation were set out. The counter affidavit filed on 01.02.2021 is a copy of the Counter affidavit filed on 23.01.2021. 4. 4 RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 20,0 The petitioner filed a reply to this counter stating that the SDPO had issued memo, dated 16.11.2020, instructing the Circle Inspector to conduct the investigation in terms of the guidelines set out in the memo. However, none of these guidelines were followed by the 3 respondent. Thereafter, written instructions were submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police., Peddapuram Police Station to the learned Government Pleader who placed them before this Court. These written instructions essentially state that enquiries were being conducted despite which no fruitful information was forthcoming. This Court had sought a further report as to the steps taken for investigating the case of the missing person. In compliance of these directions, a report was filed by the Circle Inspector, on 06.01.2025. This report enclosed the case diary setting out the statements made by various persons including the petitioner. The sister of the missing person was also examined on account of a doubt raised by the petitioner. It is stated that none of these enquiries have resulted in any fruitful information being obtained. 5. rd Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in the matter would contend that the investigation has not been carried out with full force and vigour and the apparent disinterest in the investigation of the case is the reason why the missing person could not Retraced. 6. 5 RRR,J& MRK.J W.P.No.25579 of 2020 7. Having gone through the record, we are satisfied that the 3 respondent has carried out an investigation, on the normal lines. In such circumstances, nothing further would survive in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3 respondent to carry on his efforts to trace the missing person and to take a decision, depending upon the material available, to pursue the case or close the case. rd 8. 9. In the event of any future difficulties, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Superintendent of Police (U), Bhanugudi Junction, Police Quarters Kakinada 533 503. 3. The Station House Officer, Peddapuram P. S., East Godavari District.[BY SPEED POST] 4. One CC to Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyalu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.25579 of 2020 ^ 1 8 MAR 2025 . Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS