Dismissed

Lakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2026HCP/323/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother filed suit for habeas corpus for her missing disabled son. Court held that since police registered a missing person case, no illegal detention is established. Suit closed with direction to police to expedite investigation. Subject: Writ jurisdiction on missing person. Outcome: Suit closed.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. Respondent Police directed to expedite investigation and produce detenu or file charge sheet.

Lakshmi Vs The Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

HCP No. 323 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

H.C.P.No. 323 of 2026

Lakshmi

W/o. Ettiyappan

..Petitioner(s)

The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram - 631 501.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. Crime No.13 of 2026.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

__________ Page1 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

HCP No. 323 of 2026

¶19

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 2^nd respondent police to produce the petitioner’s son E.Suman, aged about 35 years, son of Ettiyappan, before this Court and set him at Liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Ragu

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Karthikeyan

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J.)

¶24

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, namely E.Suman, S/o.Ettiyappan, aged about 35 years, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction to the second respondent-Police to secure and produce her son, who has been missing from 25.01.2026, before this Court and set him at Liberty.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

It is seen that the petitioner lodged a complaint stating that her son, who is a person with hearing and speech impairment, was residing at her brother’s house and employed in a hotel. On 25.01.2026, the detenu returned

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

HCP No. 323 of 2026

¶30

home, took a sum of Rs.500/- from the petitioner and went out, but thereafter did not return. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the second respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2016 on 27.01.2026 for

¶31

“man missing” and the investigation is in progress.

¶32

Taking into consideration the fact that a case has already been registered and investigation is underway, this Court is of the view that no case of illegal detention is made out so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. However, the second respondent-Police are directed to expedite the investigation and take all necessary steps to trace the detenu, who is a person with hearing and speech impairment, at the earliest and produce him before the jurisdictional Court or file a charge sheet, as the case may be in accordance with law.

¶33

(P.V.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 19-02-2026

¶34

Index: Yes/No

¶35

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶36

¶37

__________ Page3 of 5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP No. 323 of 2026

¶40

¶41

The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram - 631 501.

¶42

The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶43

__________ Page4 of 5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP No. 323 of 2026

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

H.C.P.No. 323 of 2026

¶51

19-02-2026

¶52

__________ Page5 of 5

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Lakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Murugan Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Chandru Alias Subash Chandrabose Vs State Rep By

Paramasivam Vs The State rep by The Superintendent of Police

Kilara Vs The Director General of Prisons

Dayanidhi Vs Dhanalakshmi

R.Sathiya and Another Vs Balasivaramakrishnan v