Territorial Jurisdiction In Missing Person Cases | Court Can Direct CBI Probe If Journey Commenced Within Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

"Peaceful sleep of the civilian is at the cost of sleepless nights, vigilance and sacrifice of the soldier. The civilian society of the Nation in return, owes a responsibility to stand by the soldier who protects them, in case he faces a crisis in personal life." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 29, 2026, has affirmed that a High Court maintains the jurisdiction to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into a missing person case if the journey during which the individual disappeared commenced within its territorial limits.

Justice G. Girish, while allowing a plea filed by the father of a missing paramilitary jawan, observed that the "basic concept of criminal jurisprudence" regarding jurisdictions in transit cases, as encapsulated in Section 183 of the CrPC (now Section 203 of the BNSS), empowers the court to intervene even if the disappearance occurred en route.

The petitioner, Balan P.K., sought the court’s intervention to trace his son, a rifleman with the Tripura State Rifles, who went missing in April 2012 while traveling by train from Kerala to his duty station in Tripura. Despite the petitioner reporting the disappearance to railway police authorities across multiple states, the investigations remained inconclusive, and the agencies eventually closed the files as undetected. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a specialized investigation by the CBI to unravel the mystery surrounding his son's fate.

The primary question before the court was whether it possessed the territorial jurisdiction to direct a CBI investigation when the subject went missing during a journey crossing multiple state boundaries. The court was also called upon to determine whether a lapse of fourteen years in a missing person case acts as a legal bar to ordering a superior investigation by a central agency.

Jurisdiction Over Transit Offenses

The court rejected the CBI's objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that the missing person had commenced his journey from Ernakulam. The court held that applying the analogy of Section 183 CrPC (Section 203 BNSS) is appropriate, as it allows for an inquiry in any court through whose local jurisdiction the person passed during the journey. Consequently, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fully invoked.

Refusal of Pessimistic Investigation

Regarding the contention that an investigation after 14 years would be futile, the court expressed strong disapproval of a "negative pessimistic attitude." It noted that while the "golden hours" for a missing person investigation are 48 to 72 hours, the state’s obligation toward a soldier who has dedicated his life to national service does not expire due to the passage of time.

"This Court cannot shut its doors against him, when he requests for CBI enquiry as a last resort."

Exercise of Extraordinary Powers

The court emphasized that because the petitioner had knocked on the court's doors within six months of the disappearance, the delay in the process is not attributable to him. Therefore, the court found this to be one of the "rarest cases" necessitating the use of extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct the CBI to take over the investigation.

The court directed the CBI to assign a suitable officer to the case, tasking them with investigating all aspects of the disappearance. The State Police Chiefs of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh were ordered to immediately transmit all case records, including those from the Government Railway Police Station in Visakhapatnam, to the CBI. The court’s order ensures that the investigation is now centralized to provide the petitioner with a conclusive answer regarding his son's disappearance.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026