N.Nelson vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011433722026}
N.Nelson
S/o.Nagaraj,
D.No.3/23, Vellari Odai,
Puthumadam Via,
Ramanathapuram district.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by,
The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police
Utchipuli Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more
particularly in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of petitioner's wife by name
Nithiya, W/o.Nelson, Female, aged 29 years, detenu in the present case,
before this Hon'ble Court and consequently set her at liberty and pass
such any or other orders.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s S.Balaji
M/s P.Rengaraju
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
M/s Sharu M
For Respondent(s) :Mr.C.Christopher,
Additional Public Prosecutor
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
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
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
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
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.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
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
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
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
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
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.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
PAL
HCP(MD) No. 1365 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:51 pm )