Recently, the Allahabad High Court has flagged serious lapses in how missing person complaints are handled in Uttar Pradesh, observing that the State machinery moved only after judicial intervention nearly one-and-a-half years after a complaint was first lodged.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a father whose 32-year-old son went missing from Lucknow in July 2024. A missing person report was submitted in July 2024, but no meaningful steps followed. With no progress forthcoming, the Petitioner approached the High Court in November 2025. Taking note of the gravity of an adult missing from the State capital, the Court sought a personal affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, detailing the steps taken.
Only after the Court’s order dated in December 2025, did the police lodge an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and initiate steps such as circulation of photographs, newspaper notices, and broadcasts through Doordarshan and radio.
The Bench described the matter as a “classic example of the casual and cavalier attitude of the authorities,” noting that complaints appeared to remain dormant on official portals until prodded by court orders. The Court expressed concern that in a welfare State, citizens should not be compelled to approach constitutional courts merely to trigger routine police action in missing person cases. It also recorded the State counsel’s submission that missing complaints are uploaded online and often see no further action unless external impetus is provided an approach the Court found deeply troubling.
Seeking systemic accountability, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit within three weeks. The affidavit must disclose actions taken on the petitioner’s complaint, data on missing person reports uploaded since January 1, 2024, and their outcomes, the procedure followed after such uploads, and whether complainants are kept informed of progress. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 29, 2026, with a warning that failure to comply would require the Principal Secretary’s personal appearance.
Case Title: Vikrama Prasad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 11291 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Babita Rani
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Onkar Pandey, Adv. Anand Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
