Subramani vs Superintendent Of Police - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41728

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Subramani – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent Of Police – Respondent
H.C.P.No.929 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Palanisamy
For the Respondents: R.Muniyapparaj

Important Points

A Habeas Corpus petition for a missing adult cannot be maintained as a substitute for standard investigative procedures; the appropriate remedy lies in directing the police to expedite the investigation of the registered criminal case.

Subject

Writ Jurisdiction - Habeas Corpus

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226

Headnote

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of a missing individual. The court observed that a case has already been registered with the local police under its investigative jurisdiction. The core issue is whether the court should intervene in an ongoing police investigation regarding a missing person. Determining that the petitioner must pursue the remedy with the investigating authorities, the court mandated that superior police officials ensure an expeditious investigation. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the specified police authorities to expedite the search for the missing person.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding the missing person and existing police complaint. (Para 2)
2. the court directs police authorities to conduct the investigation expeditiously rather than intervening directly. (Para 3)

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner’s daughter, who is aged about 36 years has been missing since June 2025. Based on the petitioner’s complaint, the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.213 of 2025. Since the detenue continues to remain untraced, this Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed.

3. We are of the view that the petitioner has to necessarily pursue his remedy before the second respondent. We direct the first respondent to issue suitable instructions to the second respondent to ensure that the missing individual is traced as expeditiously as possible.

4. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document