Madras High Court
H.Velavadhas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 February, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 04/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
H.Velavadhas ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep By The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station,
Othakadai, Madurai.
(Crime No.338 of 2010)
3. The Home Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
(R3 is suo motu impleaded vide
Court order dated 04.02.2026) ... Respondents /
Complainants
PRAYER :-
To pass orders by considering petitioner's representation dated
26.11.2025 to recover the jewels by conducting further investigation or
to compensate the petitioner since the case was originally closed as
undeducted.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 and R2
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
Mr.S.Ravi for R3
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the
respondent police to consider the petitioner’s representation dated
26.11.2025 to recover the jewels by conducting further investigation or
to compensate the petitioner since the case was originally closed as
undeducted.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has given a complaint with respect to the theft of 22
Sovereigns of his gold jewels on 20.06.2010, following which a FIR in
Crime No.338 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Section 457
and 380 of IPC [ Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS] on 20.06.2010. After
fter investigation, the same was closed as undetected. Pursuant to the
same the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.4094 of 2014 seeking
further investigation and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, by order
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
dated 29.01.2014 directed the investigating officer to conduct further
investigation and ordered to file a final report as expeditiously as
possible. Despite lapse of eight months, there was no proper progress in
the matter. Even the petitioner was not called for any enquiry and they
have failed in their duty. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this
Court earlier in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15255 of 2014 and this Court on
21.08.2014 passed an order directing the respondent to contact further
inquiry and final report within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of the recent order. Even thereafter, there is no progress
in the investigation. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent police submitted that the case has been closed as
“undetected”and RCS notice has also been served on the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner’s case should be considered for grant of compensation, a
proper recommendation can be addressed to the Home Secretary and on
receipt of the same, final call will be taken.
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. In a similar nature of this case, this Court passed an order in
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10290 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 and the relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:-
“36.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattiram and
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2012 SC 1485],
emphasised the concept of “victimology” and recognised
that criminal jurisprudence must evolve to protect victims
as rights-bearing participants, not as silent spectators.
The victim’s expectation that the State will protect him,
investigate the crime and restore his loss is a legitimate
one arising out of Article 21. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:-
“50. … The criminal jurisprudence, with the
passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology
which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from
the view point of the criminal as well as the victim.
Both are viewed in the social context. The view of
the victim is given due regard and respect in
certain countries. …”
37.When that expectation is defeated due to failure
of the State machinery, the victim’s fundamental right to
life and dignity stands infringed. The responsibility of the4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026State does not end with registration of an FIR or filing of
an “undetected” report. It continues until justice, in
some form, is provided to the victim.
38.The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in
Abdul Rashid v. State of Orissa and Others, [2013 SCC
OnLine Ori 493], held that when the State fails to
identify the accused or collect acceptable evidence to
punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains.
The Court reasoned that victims of crime have a
legitimate expectation that the State will protect their
rights and, when it fails to do so, it must compensate
them for that failure. The relevant portion is extracted as
under:-
“6. Question for consideration is whether
the responsibility of the State ends merely by
registering a case, conducting investigation and
initiating prosecution and whether apart from
taking these steps, the State has further
responsibility to the victim. Further question is
whether the Court has legal duty to award
compensation irrespective of conviction or
acquittal. When the State fails to identify the
accused or fails to collect and present acceptable
evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give
compensation remains. Victim of a crime or his
kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the
State will punish the guilty and compensate the
victim. There are systemic or other failures
responsible for crime remaining unpunished which
need to be addressed by improvement in quality
and integrity of those who deal with investigation5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026and prosecution, apart from improvement of
infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the
only step in providing justice to victim. Victim
expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures,
including monetary compensation. Such
compensation has been directed to be paid in
public law remedy with reference to Article 21. In
numerous cases, to do justice to the victims, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed payment of
monetary compensation as well as rehabilitative
settlement where State or other authorities failed
to protect the life and liberty of victims. …
7. Expanding scope of Article 21 is not limited to
providing compensation when the State or its
functionaries are guilty of an act of commission
but also to rehabilitate the victim or his family
where crime is committed by an individual without
any role of the State or its functionary.”
39.Similarly, in Ankush Vhivaji Gaikwad v. State of
Maharashtra [(2013) 6 SCC 770], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court recognised that the shift towards a victim-centric
justice system requires recognition of the victim’s right to
reparation and compensation. The Court observed that
this marks a return to the ancient understanding that
justice is not complete unless the harm suffered by the
victim is acknowledged and remedied. The relevant
portion is extracted as under:-
“33. The long line of judicial pronouncements of
this Court recognised in no uncertain terms a
paradigm shift in the approach towards victims of
crimes who were held entitled to reparation,
restitution or compensation for loss or injury
suffered by them. This shift from retribution to6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026restitution began in the mid 1960s and gained
momentum in the decades that followed.
Interestingly the clock appears to have come full
circle by the law makers and courts going back in a
great measure to what was in ancient times
common place.”
40.In fact, the 154th Report of the Law
Commission of India (1996) and the Malimath
Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System
(2003) have both recommended that the State should
provide compensation to victims of crime, especially in
cases where offenders remain unidentified or
unpunished. These recommendations flow from the
constitutional obligation of the State to secure justice
and protect fundamental rights. The relevant portions are
extracted as under:
Law Commission Report:-
“Chapter-15:
1. … Crimes often entail substantive harm to
people and not merely symbolic harm to the social
order. Consequently, the needs and rights of
victims of crime should receive priority attention
in the total response to crime. One recognized
method of protection of victims is compensation to
victims of crime. The needs of victims and their
family are extensive and varied.”
Malimath Committee Report:-
“6.7.2 What happens to the right of victim to get
justice to the harm suffered? Well, he can be
satisfied if the state successfully gets the criminal
punished to death, a prison sentence or fine. How
does he get justice if the State does not succeed in7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026so doing? Can he ask the State to compensate him
for the injury? In principle, that should be the
logical consequence in such a situation; but the
State which makes the law absolves itself.
… … …
6.8.7 Sympathizing with the plight of victims under
Criminal Justice administration and taking
advantage of the obligation to do complete justice
under the Indian Constitution in defense of human
rights, the Supreme Court and High Courts in
India have of late evolved the practice of awarding
compensatory remedies not only in terms of money
but also in terms of other appropriate reliefs and
remedies. …
6.8.8 These decisions have clearly acknowledged
the need for compensating victims of violent
crimes irrespective of the fact whether offenders
are apprehended or punished. The principle
invoked is the obligation of the state to protect
basic rights and to deliver justice to victims of
crimes fairly and quickly. It is time that the
Criminal Justice System takes note of these
principles of Indian Constitution and legislate on
the subject suitably.”
41.In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Others
[(1993) 2 SCC 746], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that Courts have the power and obligation to grant
compensation under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution for violation of fundamental rights due to
State action or inaction. The Court described such
compensation as a “public law remedy” distinct from
private claims for damages, intended to assure citizens
that they live under a legal system which protects their
8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
rights and provides redress for public wrongs. The
relevant observation is extracted as under:-
“34.The public law proceedings serve a
different purpose than the private law proceedings.
The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary
damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this
Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for
established infringement of the indefeasible right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a
remedy available in public law and is based on the
strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed
basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The
purpose of public law is not only to civilize public
power but also to assure the citizen that they live
under a legal system which aims to protect their
interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when
the court molds the relief by granting
“compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or
226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or
protection of fundamental rights, it does so under
the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer
and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the
State which has failed in its public duty to protect
the fundamental rights of the citizen. … … … This
Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of
the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the
power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to
grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim
or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are
established to have been flagrantly infringed by
calling upon the State to repair the damage done
by its officers to the fundamental rights of the
citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to
the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal
proceedings.”9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
42.This principle applies squarely to the present
context. The State, having assumed exclusive control over
investigation and prosecution, has correspondingly
assumed responsibility for their failure. When citizens
surrender the right of private retribution and repose faith
in the rule of law, the State undertakes to investigate
crimes and secure justice on their behalf. If it fails in this
basic duty, the resulting injury to the victim is an injury
inflicted by the State itself.
43.The remedy for such failure cannot be confined
to expressions of sympathy or directions for further
investigation. The constitutional guarantee of life and
liberty demands a real and effective remedy.
Compensation awarded in public law serves not only to
redress individual loss but also to affirm State
accountability and restore faith in the justice system.
44.Therefore, when a crime remains “undetected”
due to lapses or inaction of the investigating machinery,
and the victim is left without recovery or closure for
years, it constitutes a violation of Article 21. The Court,
as guardian of fundamental rights, must step in to
provide limited monetary relief as a measure of public
law compensation. This power flows from the same
constitutional foundation that empowers the State to
prosecute offences in the name of the public. The object
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
of such compensation is not to punish individual officers
or to substitute civil damages, but to recognise the failure
of the system as a whole and to impose corrective
responsibility upon the State. It also serves as a reminder
that justice delayed or denied at the investigative stage is
as grave a violation as any miscarriage at the trial stage.
45.Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior
Court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii)
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In State of Punjab
v. Kasturi Lal [2004 (12) SCC 195], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that Section 482 confers the
inherent power to High Courts to do right and undo
wrong and the relevant portions are extracted
hereunder:-
“10.No legislative enactment dealing with
procedure can provide for all cases that may
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent
powers apart from express provisions of law which
are necessary for proper discharge of functions
and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the Section
which merely recognizes and preserves inherent
powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether
civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution,
all such powers as are necessary to do the right
and to undo a wrong in course of administration of
justice.”11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
46.It is also pertinent to note that there is no
prohibition on the exercise of the powers of this Court
under Article 226 while dealing with matters under its
criminal jurisdiction. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another
vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others [(1998) 5
SCC 749], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
power of judicial review could very well be exercised by
the High Courts when dealing with criminal matters
along with its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-
“22. It is settled that the High Court can exercise
its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, this Court
examined the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution and also the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said
could be exercised by the High Court either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While
laying down certain guidelines where the court will
exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was
also stated that these guidelines could not be
inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed
by the courts. Exercise of such power would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. … … …
The power conferred on the High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under
Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more
the power more due care and caution is to be
exercised while invoking these powers.”
12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
47.Hence, this Court in exercise of the power of the
judicial review under Article 226 and inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can direct the
payment of compensation so that the ends of justice is
secured and the constitutional rights of the victims of
crime are being protected.
48.It is in this constitutional backdrop that these
petitions must be viewed. The victims in these cases have
waited for years without any progress or information.
Their stolen properties represent not only material loss
but also a deep sense of helplessness against the
machinery that was expected to protect them. The State,
having failed in its duty to investigate and prosecute
effectively, cannot now disclaim responsibility for the
consequences of that failure.
49.The materials before this Court show that in
each of these cases the investigation has been
perfunctory and the petitioners, who are victims of theft,
have been left without remedy. They have endured years
of uncertainty and distress. The pattern of neglect
disclosed in the records reveals failure of the State to
perform its constitutional duty of protection.
50.This Court therefore holds that the petitioners
are entitled to compensation and that systemic directions
must be issued to prevent recurrence of such failures.
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
51.In view of the above discussion, the following
directions are issued:-
i) The Home Department of the State shall pay monetary
compensation equivalent to 30% of the value of the
property reported stolen in each of these cases to the
respective petitioners within twelve weeks from the date
of receipt of this order.
ii) This payment shall be recoverable from the petitioners
if the offender is subsequently identified and the property
recovered.
iii) The Director General of Police shall implement the
recommendations of the Committee headed by the ADGP,
State Crime Records Bureau, Chennai, particularly:
a) Intimation to the complainant before filing any
undetected report;
b) Strict use of weekly “Crime and Occurrence (C&O)”
sheets for
information sharing; and
c) Maintenance and analysis of the Register of
Undetected Cases under PSO 608(d).
iv) The State Crime Records Bureau shall review
undetected cases on a quarterly basis to identify trends
and issue advisories to field units.
v) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular
reaffirming that filing an undetected report does not14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026terminate investigation and that such cases must be
periodically reviewed.
vi) The Director General of Police (Training) shall
design refresher courses for investigating officers on
evidence preservation, forensic procedures and victim
communication.
vii) Further, the State can also consider setting up of a
Special Investigation Team of experts in each District by
picking and choosing eminent officers in order to
investigate cases classified as “undetected” for more
than 5 years. This Team must be provided with more
infrastructure, more powers and also more pay. On the
identification of the accused, the State can consider
rewarding the officers involved to encourage them.
49.Insofar as the individual relief sought for by the
petitioners is concerned, the Investigating Officer
concerned shall pursue the investigation with due
diligence. It is open to the supervisory authorities to
review the progress of investigation, and, if
circumstances so warrant, to entrust the matter to a
higher or specialised agency for proper and effective
investigation. With the above observations and
directions, all these criminal original petitions stand
disposed of.”
15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
7. The Home Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600009, is suo motu impleaded as
the third respondent in this Criminal Original Petition.
8. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the
cause title.
9. The petitioner is hereby directed to make a fresh representation
to the newly impleaded third respondent seeking compensation for the
theft of his gold jewels and on receipt of the same the third respondent is
directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in terms of the
order passed in Crl.OP(MD)No.10290 of 2025 Batch, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
10. Fully fortified by the order extracted in Para-6, this Court
hereby issue necessary directions hereunder :-
i) The Home Department of the State shall pay monetary
compensation equivalent to 30% of the value of the property reported
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026stolen to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
ii) This payment shall be recoverable from the petitioner if the
offender is subsequently identified and the property recovered.
11. With the above observations and directions, this criminal
original petition stands allowed.
04.02.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2082 of 2026
L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J
pnn
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.2082 of 2026
Date : 04/02/2026
18/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 07:43:17 pm )