Panjavarnam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the second respondent to produce the petitioner's son namely Adhitiya, S/o.Periyandi, aged about 33 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.)

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking to produce the body or person of

¶19

the petitioner's son, namely Adhitiya, S/o.Periyandi, aged about 33 years, before this Court.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶21

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's son was working in Dalmia Cements Company at Tenkasi and he got married to one Shobiya, and they were residing at Tenkasi. She went to her parental home to visit her parents. On 15.06.2026, the petitioner met her son and returned back to her native place and on 19.06.2026, when the petitioner contacted her son over the phone, his mobile phone was switched off. On 21.06.2026, when the petitioner and her daughter went to see her son, the neighbors told them that her son had left the house at 7.00 a.m. itself and never returned. Since, despite the search, the detenue was not found, the petitioner had preferred a complaint to the second respondent, based on which, a "man missing FIR"

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

has been registered in Crime No.360 of 2026 on 21.06.2026. Since no further action has been taken by the respondent Police to trace the missing person, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶26

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a special team has been formed to investigate the case and the investigation is in progress. Further, it is not a case alleging illegal custody and hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable.

¶27

From the facts this Court finds that this Habeas Corpus Petition is

¶28

in respect of person who is simply missing and is not under unlawful detention. Unlawful detention is a sine qua non for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶29

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in H.C.P.(MD) Nos.793 and 658 of 2025 has relied on the following precedents:

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

a) Simmi Bai .vs. Shrimaan Police Mahanirishak

¶33

Mahodaya and others [2025 SCC OnLine MP 893]

¶34

b) Kalaiarasi V. State [H.C.P.No.2191 of 2017 decided on 07.05.2018

¶35

c) K.Sukumari vs. The Superintendent of Police

¶36

[Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19255 of 2016 decided on 18.9.2018]

¶37

and has held that a Habeas Corpus Petition in respect of a missing person whose detention is not stated to be unlawful/illegal is not maintainable.

¶38

In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed

¶39

of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to effectively pursue the investigation for tracing the missing person in the present case. Accordingly, the investigating officer shall continue the investigation in Crime No.360 of 2026 and take all necessary steps to trace the missing person.

¶40

(A.D.J.C.,J.,) (R.P.,J.,) 01.07.2026

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶42

Indu

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

To