Writ Of Habeas Corpus Cannot Be Invoked In Missing Person Cases: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be invoked in missing person cases. 

The Court emphasised that such cases should be dealt with under Indian Penal Code and Code Of Criminal Procedure.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of habeas Corpus, command and directions to authorities to produce the petitioner's wife, who has been missing.

The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey observed, “Cases of missing persons are to be registered under the regular provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of Law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such cases of missing persons.”

Brief Facts-

The prosecution's case is that the Petitioner Khilendra Chauhan, married to Respondent, Priyanka Chouhan, since 1999, reported her missing in 2023. A Missing Report was registered, and a complaint was also filed, but she has not been found, leading to the filing of this petition.

The Court noted, “The writ of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from the unlawful detention, whether in prison or in private custody. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention. Control and custody are sufficient. For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention of the subject.”

The Court mentioned the decision in Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj and another [(2007) 10 SCC 190] and noted that while explaining the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course and the applicant must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention.

The Court observed, “the constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of "illegal detention" and a strong suspicion about any such "illegal detention" is a condition precedent for moving a Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall not entertain a Habeas Corpus petition, where there is no allegation of "illegal detention" or suspicion about any such "illegal detention".”

The division bench said that in the instant case, the petitioner has miserably failed to plead and establish the necessary ingredients for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and as such, the extraordinary writ cannot be issued at the instance of the petitioner for production of a missing person, as according to the Court it is the case of the petitioner himself that her wife is missing.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.