Writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for tracing missing persons absent prima facie proof of illegal detention.

The Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent police authorities to trace his 85-year-old father, Suraj Prasad Singh, who has been missing since March 19, 2013.

The Petitioner’s wife had previously submitted a missing report to the Beur Police Station, alleging suspicion that the Petitioner's sisters (Respondents 8, 9, and 10) abducted the father to facilitate the illegal registration of sale deeds for his property.

The Petitioner further alleged that the sisters filed false affidavits asserting the Petitioner’s death to alienate property in Purnia.

Despite complaints to higher authorities, no FIR was registered and no effective investigation was conducted.

The State contested the maintainability of the writ, arguing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable or should be entertained for tracing a missing person when alternative statutory remedies under the Cr.PC/BNSS are available?

Whether the Jurisdictional Magistrate has the power to monitor investigations and issue search warrants for missing persons under Sections 156(3) and 97 of the Cr.PC?

The Court applied the principles of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that while the power is plenary, it should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, except in cases of fundamental rights violations, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.

It relied on Section 156(3) Cr.PC (Section 175(3) BNSS) regarding the Magistrate’s power to order and monitor investigations.

It further applied Section 97 Cr.PC (Section 100 BNSS) regarding the issuance of search warrants for persons believed to be confined under circumstances amounting to an offence.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner alleged abduction, there was no clear evidence of "illegal confinement" by the State or a specific individual, characterizing the matter essentially as a "missing person" case.

The Court reasoned that high courts should discourage the practice of filing writ petitions for the registration of FIRs or conduct of investigations when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a robust machinery.

Specifically, the Jurisdictional Magistrate possesses "wide powers" to not only order the registration of an FIR but also to monitor the investigation to ensure the police perform their duties effectively.

Cited precedents from various High Courts (Madras, Gauhati, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan) established that a writ of habeas corpus is not a tool for tracing missing persons unless a prima facie case of unlawful detention is made out.

Consequently, the Petitioner's grievances regarding police inaction were better suited for redressal before a Magistrate rather than through the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC (Section 175(3) BNSS) before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the Magistrate is duty-bound to pass orders in accordance with the law to ensure proper investigation and recovery of the victim.