Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
A.Mani – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.567 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Muthukumaran
For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Court directs police to expeditiously trace missing person per guidelines, disposing HCP without ordering release.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of Habeas Corpus was sought to secure the missing wife of the petitioner and set her at liberty. The petitioner reported his wife missing after she failed to return from work on 17.03.2026, leading to a missing person FIR in Crime No.50 of 2026. The court noted the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission of an alleged extra-marital affair. The court directed compliance with prior guidelines for investigation. Issues framed around expeditious tracing of the detenue. The court applied guidelines from precedent to mandate police action on missing person cases involving potential voluntary disappearance. The Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of with directions to the police.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus petition for missing wife heard. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner reports wife missing post-work. (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution alleges extra-marital affair. (Para 4) |
| 4. police directed to trace per guidelines. (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 directing the respondents to secure the detenue, who is the wife of the petitioner and to set her at liberty.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was married to one Petchiammal and they have two children. On 17.03.2026, the petitioner and the detenue left for coolie work and the detenue did not return back in the evening and thereafter, her whereabouts were also not able to be ascertained. Hence, a complaint was given before the second respondent on 21.03.2026, based on which, a woman missing FIR has been registered in Crime No.50 of 2026. Since no effective steps were taken to find the whereabouts of the detenue, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner's wife had developed an extra marital affair with some other person, who is living in Kerala and that person is also missing.
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.
6. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
