P.Thangaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

P.Thangaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should issue directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's son, T.Veerapandiyan, aged 38 years, before the Court and set him at liberty. +1 more

Court's answer

For the stated reasons (suppression of the earlier petition and lack of diligence), the habeas corpus petition was dismissed; the Court desisted from imposing costs having regard to the petitioner's age.

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to consider the habeas corpus petition first because the petitioner suppressed the institution of HCP No.1623 of 2025, filed for the same grievance and closed on 21.08.2025, which found no mention in the present petition.

Key takeaways

The Court was not convinced that the petitioner had shown due interest or diligence in pursuing the matter, noting the alleged complaint of 27.12.2021 denied by the prosecution and the FIR registered only in 2024.ratio¶29-30
The Court reiterated the direction in the earlier order dated 21.08.2025 in HCP.No.1623 of 2025 that the investigation must be concluded expeditiously and a final report filed.ratio¶32-33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Article 226) under HCP No. 408 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras (coram: Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan; order made by Dr. Anita Sumanth J.; decided 05-03-2026), DISMISSED. The petitioner sought production and liberation of his son, detenu T.Veerapandiyan (38), said to be missing. The Court declined consideration on two grounds: (i) the petitioner suppressed the earlier HCP No.1623 of 2025 filed for the same grievance, which was closed on 21.08.2025 with a direction to expedite the investigation in Crime No.333 of 2024 and file a final report; and (ii) lack of due interest or diligence — the complaint was stated to be of 27.12.2021, its receipt was categorically denied by the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the FIR was registered only in 2024. Costs were not imposed considering the petitioner's age. The direction of 21.08.2025 that the investigation be concluded expeditiously and a final report filed was reiterated. Neutral citation: 2026:MHC:919.

2026:MHC:919

HCP No. 408 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

HCP No. 408 of 2026

P.Thangaraj S/o.Pakkiri Ayya, No.2/24, Kudiyanath Street, Kaarukudi, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District - 614 208.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Superintendent of Police, The Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.

The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

..Respondent(s)

PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ or order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to produce body of the petitioners son namely

Page1 of 4

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

HCP No. 408 of 2026

Mr.T.Veerapandiyan aged 38 years S/o. Thangavel, before this Honble Court and set him at Liberty.

For Petitioner(s): J.Nathiya For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John, Advocate R 1 And R2

Order

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

We are not inclined to consider this Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) for multiple reasons. First of all, the petitioner has suppressed the institution of HCP No.1623 of 2025 filed for the same grievance. That HCP has come to be closed on 21.08.2025, this Court concluding that the prayer does not require consideration and directing the police to expedite the investigation in Crime No.333 of 2024 and file a final report expeditiously. There is no mention of the aforesaid HCP in the present HCP.

Secondly, there is a statement in paragraph 3 of the present HCP that a complaint had been lodged after the detenu, one T.Veerapandiyan, went missing. The date of complaint is stated to be 27.12.2021 and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel who accepts notice for the respondents categorically denies having received any such complaint. The registration of FIR was in 2024, 3 years after the detenu allegedly went missing.

Page2 of 4

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

HCP No. 408 of 2026

We are, hence, also not convinced that the petitioner has shown due

interest or diligence in pursuing the matter.

For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition. Though tempted to

put the petitioner to terms, we desist, having regard to the age of the petitioner. We reiterate the direction in the earlier order dated 21.08.2025 in HCP.No.1623

of 2025 to the effect that the investigation must be concluded expeditiously, and a final report filed.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 05-03-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

SL

To

The Superintendent of Police, The Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.

The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

HCP No. 408 of 2026

DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.

AND

SUNDER MOHAN J.

SL

HCP No. 408 of 2026

05-03-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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