Mandatory Registration of FIR and Institutionalized Monitoring for All Missing Person Complaints to Prevent Trafficking and Exploitation.

The Petitioner’s cousin, Mr. Kumar, went missing in June 2020, leading to the registration of an FIR on 15.06.2020.

In May 2024, the Petitioner was informed that the FIR had been listed as "dormant," effectively ceasing the investigation despite the person remaining untraced.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the memorandum declaring the case dormant and a writ of mandamus for a diligent investigation.

During proceedings, the Court took note of larger systemic failures, observing that thousands of men, women, and children remained untraced in Karnataka over the last five years.

Whether the police can legally categorize a missing person FIR as "dormant" while the individual remains untraced.

Whether the State has discharged its affirmative, non-delegable obligation to ensure a structured and scientifically sound investigative response to missing person complaints.

Whether there is a need for a standardized, institutionalized framework (SOP) to handle missing person cases and inter-state coordination.

The Court emphasized the State's constitutional and statutory mandates under Articles 226 and 227 to protect life and liberty.

It applied Rule 92(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which mandates that a missing child be treated as a child in need of care and protection.

The Court relied on Section 365 of the IPC (and corresponding Section 140 of the BNS) requiring mandatory registration of FIRs for missing persons after a specific period or where foul play is suspected.

It further integrated principles from previous judicial directions to consolidate Standing Order No. 1054, which establishes the "District Missing Persons Unit" (DMPU) and "Missing Persons Squad" (MPS).

The Court reasoned that "dormant" status for an active missing person investigation is unsustainable and arbitrary.

It observed that missing person cases, particularly involving women and children, are often early indicators of trafficking or organized crime, requiring a "scientifically sound" and "proactive" response rather than a clerical entry in a register.

By examining five years of data (2020–2025), the Court identified that 6,470 men and 2,981 women/children remained untraced, signaling a systemic failure in the State's tracing mechanisms.

The Court analyzed the newly issued Standing Order No. 1054, noting that it creates a necessary tiered supervision model (from SHOs to Range IGPs) and leverages technology like the "Track the Missing Child Portal" and "Mission Vatsalya" to ensure accountability.

The Court highlighted that inter-state coordination is vital because trafficking frequently crosses state boundaries, necessitating a reciprocal administrative framework.

While the Petitioner's individual grievance was addressed, the Court issued a continuing mandamus for the systemic implementation of Standing Order No. 1054.

It directed the State to operationalize District Missing Persons Units (DMPU) across all districts and establish Review Committees to monitor cases every three months.

The Court ordered the State to file a comprehensive compliance report by 10.04.2026, detailing the status of active/dormant cases and the functionality of the digital tracking portals.