Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice C.M. Poonacha, while deciding a habeas corpus plea concerning an untraced woman, held that police shall not refuse to register any missing persons complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The Court issued wide-ranging directions for uniform investigation of such cases, including the creation of a supervisory committee of senior police officers, quarterly reviews of inquiries, and mandatory use of designated portals and technology. Referring to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and allied rules, the Bench also required structured reporting to the High Court to ensure compliance.

The proceedings arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner-father alleging that his daughter, aged 27 years, was missing. The petitioner contended that despite repeated approaches to the jurisdictional police station, his grievance was not adequately addressed and his daughter remained untraced. The State was represented through the Director General of Police and other senior officers. The dispute centered on the efficacy of police investigation into missing persons cases, particularly when women or minors were involved.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Registration of Sikh Marriages | States and UTs Directed to Frame Rules Under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act Within Four Months

The petitioner maintained that the complaint was not taken seriously by the authorities and that procedural safeguards directed by the Supreme Court and statutory rules under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were not followed. The State submitted that steps had been taken in accordance with existing rules and standing orders but acknowledged challenges in timely tracing of missing women.

The Court examined the record of investigation placed by the police and noted the absence of uniform compliance with existing guidelines. Evidence before the Court included submissions from the petitioner and the State, references to the case diary, reports on missing persons tracing, and mention of the portals maintained for such cases. The Court also referred to various notifications and standard operating procedures issued by the Central and State Governments, along with previous Supreme Court directions in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and other cases.

Statutory provisions invoked included Section 110(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 92 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, which deal with missing children. The Court noted that similar principles were applicable to missing women, given the serious ramifications of such complaints, including trafficking and abduction. The petition thus became a vehicle for the Court to examine systemic deficiencies in missing persons investigations and to lay down directions binding on police authorities across the State.

The Bench recorded that “a missing persons complaint would also have various ramifications like abduction, trafficking, etc.” It stated that “it is also relevant to note that in all cases of missing persons (including that of woman and minors) grave ramifications like abduction, etc., are also possible.”

It observed: “the State Government has maintained a website for furnishing details of the missing persons, which is denoted as ‘Citizen Central Police’. However, it is noticed that the said website is not user friendly and details of the present case also is not forthcoming in the said website.”

The Court further stated: “considering the aforementioned, it is just and proper for this Court to notice the same and having regard to the passage of time and evolution of technology, issue directions as to the manner in which a complaint regarding missing person is to be investigated.”

It recorded that the first 24 hours are crucial, citing earlier judgments: “there is no scope for any speculation or conjecture that the child may return home in 24 hours and hence the police can wait. In fact, the first 24 hour-period is the crucial period or critical period, when steps for tracing of the missing person or child could lead to positive outcome.”

The Court noted that numerous SOPs have been issued by the Central and State Governments, and that “both the Central and State Governments have issued periodic Circulars/Notifications/SOPs in that regard. It is pertinent to note here that the cases of missing persons can be further sub-categorized with respect to missing woman as also minors and cases of other missing persons.”

It was also observed that compliance with such directions was inconsistent and that “it is necessary to issue comprehensive directions to be complied with by all police authorities in the State so that no complainant seeking to lodge a missing persons complaint is turned away and effective follow-up measures are ensured.”

The Court ordered: “The complaint pertaining to missing persons shall be promptly registered and the concerned statutory authority/ies after specifically noticing as to whether the complaint pertains to a missing woman/minors or any other person shall take suitable action in that regard including intimating the same to the jurisdictional AHTU.”

“No complainant seeking to lodge a complaint of a missing person shall under any circumstances be turned away by any of the Police Authorities and every such complaint shall be attended to immediately and requisite action in that regard is to be taken, including suggesting to the complainant further possible measures that may be availed.”

“No complaint should be refused to be registered on the ground that the concerned Police Station does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the same and information regarding the complaint ought to be immediately transmitted to the jurisdictional AHTU with instructions that appropriate action be taken.”

“Every case of missing persons wherein the missing person has not been found or the mortal remains of the missing person having not been recovered for more than two months, the said case shall be placed before a committee consisting of the Inspector General of Police of the particular Range; the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District; and the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the jurisdictional Police Station.”

“The Committee shall review the investigation already done in the case placed before it and shall oversee further investigation in the matter and ensure compliance of various directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court as also compliance of the Circulars and SOPs issued by the Central and State Governments.”

“The Committee shall forward a report with regard to the investigation already carried out and the further steps to be taken to investigate the missing persons complaint to the Registrar (Judicial)/Additional Registrar (Judicial) as the case may be within two weeks of the case being referred to it.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Permits Adoption by Mother and Stepfather | Biological Father’s Silence Inferred as Consent, Authorities Directed to Complete Process

“The Registrar (Judicial)/ Additional Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure listing of the matter before the Court together with such reports received by the Committee immediately upon its receipt. The third respondent – Police Sub-Inspector, Yellapur, shall file an affidavit reporting the status of the investigation after specifically noticing the directions issued at para 33 herein above.”

“The State Government shall file compliance affidavit reporting the compliance of furnishing details of AHTUs in each District with staffing patterns and powers; compliance made pursuant to directions issued at para 19 in the case of Shiva17; compliance of the directions issued at para No.34; and issuance of notification regarding constitution of the committee as ordered in para No.35 hereinabove.”

“Requisite compliance by respondent No.3 as well as the State Government on the next date of hearing i.e., 15.10.2025.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Ramesh Babu, High Court Government Pleader

Case Title: Ramakrishna S/o Subray Bhat v. The Director General of Police and Others
Case Number: WPHC No.100012/2024
Bench: Justice S.G. Pandit, Justice C.M. Poonacha