Orissa High Court
WPCRL/60/2026 of MARKANDA PARIDA Vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) , CUTTACK on 20 July 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.60 of 2026 Markanda Parida …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Rituranjan Chhotaray, Advocate -Versus- Superintendent of Police (Rural), Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Debasish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPCRL No.60 of 2026
Markanda Parida
….
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.–
Mr. Rituranjan Chhotaray, Advocate
-Versus-
Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Cuttack and others
….
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.–
Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.07.2026
01.
1. The instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is at the behest of a father of the minor victim girl, who allegedly got missing from the house in the wee hours of 25.04.2026. Though the omnibus averments have been made that the petitioner apprehends a kidnapping of the child but in fact the complaint was lodged on the premise that she was missing from home.
2. On the last occasion, we invited the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is maintainable, in the event, the person got missing. We have been given to understand that the writ petition in relation to a missing child or a missing person, is not an appropriate remedy. The support can be lent to a coordinate Bench decision rendered in Nimananda Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Ori 5628 where the said coordinate Bench took note of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj, (2007) 10 SCC 190, where the apex Court succinctly highlighted that the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of the habeas corpus cannot be used as a device or a tool in all and every cases. The greatness of such powers lies primarily on an illegal confinement and the power to be exercised ex debito justitiae in a subsequent decision rendered in Home Secretary (Prisons) Vs. H. Nilofer Nisha, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 161, the apex Court traces the origin of the phrase „habeas corpus‟ from a latin maxim to mean to produce the body but before the Court embarked its journey on such peripheral, it has to be decided whether the body is under the illegal detention or not.
3. The co-ordinate Bench ultimately held in unequivocal term that the writ in the nature of habeas corpus is not maintainable in case of a missing person in the following:
“10. Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and routine manner. Though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and power can be exercised in clear case. Illegal confinement is a pre-condition to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It cannot be issued in respect of any and every missing person more so when no named person is alleged to be responsible for the „illegal detention‟ of the person for whose production before the Court, a writ is to be issued. On the basis of a habeas corpus petition, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised for tracing a missing person engaging an investigating agency empowered to investigate a case under Cr. P.C.
11. In this case, the petitioner has not established a prima facie case of „unlawful detention‟ of his daughter by any particular person, rather it is submitted on his behalf that his daughter has been missing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that a petition seeking the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained to trace out a missing person and for such purpose, the petitioner can pursue other effective remedy.”
4. We do not find any dissent to the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench nor we find any ambiguity and/or illegality there at. The comity of the judicial discipline, adherence of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench and in the event, the later coordinate Bench do not agree with the proposition of law expounded in the earlier judgment, the only course open is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. We don’t find such situation to have arisen in the instant case, as we find that the tool of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be stretched nor be adopted in relation to a missing person.
5. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The same is hereby dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not prevent the State to take an appropriate step as warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
S.K. Jena/Sr. Secy. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Jul-2026 11:08:31 Signature Not Verified