Smt Salma vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Salma vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2012

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

                                  1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

               DATED THIS THE    TH
                                 24
                                       DAY OF MAY 2012

                             PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K BHAKTHAVATSALA

                                 AND

              THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A S PACHHAPURE


                 WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.88 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SMT, SALMA,
W/O. SRI. ZIAULLAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT C/C. GANGAMMA MANE,
GURUPURA (BEHIND JALLI MACHINE),
TH
4
   CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
KARNATAKA.
                                                    PETITIONER
(BY SRI: TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADV)



AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
       MINISTRY OF HOME,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL &
     INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                                  2


      KARNATAKA STATE,
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
      BANGALORE.

 3.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
      SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

4.    THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
      TOWN POLICE STATION,
      SHIVAMOGGA TOWN.

5.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
      HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.

6.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
      REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      MINISTRY OF HOME, BHOPAL.

7.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL &
      INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE,
      MADYA PRADESH STATE,
      BHOPAL.

8.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
      MANDSUAR DISTRICT,
      MADHYA PRADESH.

9.    THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
      MANDSUAR POLICE STATION,
      MAN DSURA TOWN,
      MADHYA PRADESH.

10. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
    RATLAM DISTRICT,
    MADHYA PRADESH.
                                3


 11. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
     JAORA POLICE STATION,
     RATLAM DISTRICT,
     MADHYA PRADESH.

12. SRI. SYED AKBAR,
    S/C. SRI. SYED MOOSA,
    MAJOR IN AGE,
    PROP. GARLIC TRADERS,
    APMC YARD, HASSAN TOWN,
    HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.

13. SRI. MUKESH,
    FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
    TO THE PETITIONER,
    MAJOR IN AGE,
    PROP. RAJ SHREE TRADING CO.,
    GARLIC MERCHANT ORDER
    SUPPLIER'S & COMMISSION AGENT,
    MHOW NEEMUCH ROAD,
    NAI MANDI, DALUDA,
    MAN DSUAR DISTRICT,
    MADHYA PRADESH.

14. SRI. KAMLESH,
    FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
    PROP. SURAJ TRADERS,
    ANAJ KIRANA STORES,
    GARLIC MERCHANT & COMMISSION AGENT,
    DHAN MANDI, JAORA,
    RATLAM DISTRICT,
    MADHYA PRADESH.
                                          ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SPP)
                                4


      ThIS WRIT PETITION (HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING ThE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 11 TO RELEASE AND SET AT LIBERTY ThE
DETENUE SRI. ZIAULLA FROM THE ILLEGAL DETENTION OF
                                                          THE
RESPONDENT NOs.13 AND 14.

      ThIS WRIT PtTI jiON (HC) COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING BEFORE THE COURT THIS DAY, Dr. BHAKTHAVATSA
                                                    LA J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court praying to Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce her husband by name Ziauliah, who is in the custody of respondents 13 and 14.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that her husband Ziauilah who is the resident of Shimoga Town and Manager of respondent No.12 went to Madhya Pradesh where on account of financial dispute between respondent No.12 GarlIc Trade.rone side and respondents 13 and 14 on the other, respondents crand 14 have detained petltIoneA)iusband. He further submits that petitioner approached ? 1

res tF pon 3d to 5, but they have refused to take cognizance of the case and directed the petitioner to go to Madhya Pradesh for any remedy. 5 Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 1 to 11 to set free the petitioner's husband from the illegal detention of respondents 13 and 14 and also initiate action against them.

3. Sri. H.S. Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and apart from that petitioner husband is not in illegal detention of respondents 1 to 5. Therefore, he submits that writ petition is liable to be rejected.

4. From the averments of petition, it is crystal clear that respondents 13 and 14 have detained the petitioner's husband. Respondents 13 and 14 are the residents of Madhya Pradesh. Respondents 6 to 11 are the police personnel of Madhya Pradesh. Since this Court has no jurisdiction over Madhya Pradesh and apart from that petitioner husband Ziaullah is not in illegal detention by respondents 1 to 5, the writ petition is not maintainable.

p 6

5. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby rejected with liberty to take such course available in law.

Sd! JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE *bgn/.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court