HCP(MD)/1365/2026 of N.Nelson Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 27 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief in respect of the alleged disappearance of his wife and the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent police in tracing her and recovering the money and gold jewellery allegedly entrusted to his relatives.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working abroad for the past ten years. He married Nithya, daughter of Saratha and Kumaresan, who are residing at Atandanar Kottai village near Uppur. The petitioner and his wife were leading a cordial marital life, and they have no children. The petitioner would regularly remit his earnings from abroad to his wife, who operated his bank account and used his ATM card, GPay and other banking facilities.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner's cousin, Senthamilraj, and his wife, Munees Vijitha, as well as the petitioner's younger brother, Premraj, and his wife, Bhavani, had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner in January 2026. Subsequently, they borrowed a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The petitioner's wife had also allegedly advanced substantial sums of money and handed over gold jewellery, including 42 sovereigns, to the said relatives. In total, a sum of approximately Rs.79,25,000/- was allegedly paid by the petitioner's wife to them.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the said relatives neither repaid the amounts borrowed nor returned the gold jewellery. When the petitioner's wife demanded repayment, she was allegedly threatened. Thereafter, she went missing on 05.05.2026. The petitioner's in-laws lodged a complaint before the Thiruppalaikudi Police Station on 27.05.2026. However, no effective action was allegedly taken on the said complaint.

5. It is further submitted that, after returning from abroad, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 04.06.2026 regarding the disappearance of his wife and seeking recovery of the money and gold jewellery. His mother-in-law also submitted a representation to the District Collector on 22.06.2026. Since no effective action was allegedly taken, and apprehending danger to the life of his wife and the loss of the properties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had not lodged any complaint with the respondent police as claimed by him. Though the petitioner claimed to have attempted to submit a complaint in person before the first respondent on 05.09.2026, no such complaint had been received by either the first or the second respondent.

7. When this Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, he fairly submitted that the petitioner had attempted to submit the complaint in person before the first respondent, but the second respondent had refused to receive the same. He further admitted that, thereafter, no complaint was sent through registered post or by any other mode to the respondent police.

8. This Court also questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, particularly in view of the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.5423 of 2026 before this Court, seeking consideration of his representation dated 05.09.2026.

9. In the said writ petition, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) had submitted that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in the manner prayed for and that the petitioner should pursue the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Accordingly, by order dated 28.09.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint before the second respondent. Upon receipt of such complaint, the second respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, invoking Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and proceed further in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner ought to have submitted a fresh complaint before the second respondent and pursued the remedy already indicated by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that no such complaint was subsequently sent to the second respondent through post or by any other mode.

11. In the absence of any fresh complaint having been lodged in compliance with the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot bypass the remedy specifically indicated in the earlier proceedings and seek the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus without placing the foundational facts necessary for invoking such extraordinary jurisdiction before this Court.

12. On a consideration of the submissions made on either side and the materials placed before this Court, this Court finds that no material has been placed before it to establish that the petitioner's wife is under illegal detention or unlawful confinement. The grievance of the petitioner, as projected in the present petition, primarily relates to the alleged disappearance of his wife, the alleged non-return of money and gold jewellery, and the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent police.

13. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable in its present form. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh complaint before the second respondent in terms of the earlier order of this Court. Upon receipt of such complaint, the second respondent shall conduct an enquiry and proceed further in accordance with law.

14. In view of the above, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), payable by the petitioner to the Siddha Wing attached to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on or before 06.11.2026.

15. Post the matter on 11.11.2026 under the caption “For Reporting Compliance”. (M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.) 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

PAL To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Utchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to The Officer-in-Charge, Siddha Wing attached to Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AND N.GUNASEKARAN, J. PAL HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026 27-10-2026