Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
N.Shanmugavalli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Office, Madurai – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.530 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.A.Subramanian
For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Court directs police to expeditiously trace missing person and produce before magistrate per guidelines.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus was filed seeking production and release of the missing detenu. Essential facts include marriage of petitioner to detenu, his disappearance, registration of missing person FIR in Crime No.108 of 2026 on 23.02.2026, and lack of effective police investigation. Court noted submissions that efforts are ongoing to trace the detenu. Issue framed as necessity for police to trace missing detenu and produce before magistrate. Ratio decidendi directs adherence to guidelines from prior decision on missing persons cases, emphasizing expeditious investigation, production before Judicial Magistrate, notice to petitioner, and recording of detenu's statement. Habeas Corpus Petition disposed directing police to follow specified guidelines, trace detenu expeditiously, produce before learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, issue notice to petitioner, and proceed in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks habeas corpus for missing detenu post-fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. police assures efforts to trace and produce detenu. (Para 4) |
| 3. directs following prior guidelines for expeditious tracing. (Para 5) |
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
This petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the husband of the petitioner / detenu and to set him at liberty. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she married the detenu and they were living together. The detenu went missing and his whereabouts were not able to be ascertained. Hence, a complaint came to be given before the second respondent on 23.02.2026, based on which, a man missing FIR has been registered in Crime No.108 of 2026. The grievance of the petitioner is that no effective steps were taken by the respondents to ascertain the whereabouts of the detenu and it is under these circumstances, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that all efforts have been taken by the second respondent to ascertain the whereabouts of the detenu and that immediately after his whereabouts are ascertained, he will be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
5. In the light of the above submission, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to follow the guidelines given by this Court in the case of K. Sukumari Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar, reported in 2018(2) -L.W. (Crl) -636 and proceed with the case and find the whereabouts of the detenu as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the second respondent is further directed to produce the detenu before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. On such production, the petitioner shall be put on notice. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the detenu and proceed further in accordance with law.
6. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
