DURAIRAJ.K vs THE HOME SECRETARY
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
CNR:{HCMD010836342021}
K.Durairaj
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Home Secretary,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
4. Kulothungan
The Inspector of Police,
Karur Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai District.
(R4 AND R5 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED.13/09/2023 IN
WP(MD).19330/2021 BY MNKJ)
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ or Order or Direction or any other Writ in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner within a stipulated time
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
fixed by this Court based on the petitioner representation dated
22.07.2021 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
For Petitioner : M/s.Aruljenifer.A
For Respondents : M/s.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 to R3 and R5
Mr.M.Karunanithi for R4
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner
for the alleged illegal detention, custodial torture, false implication in
Crime No. 10 of 2014, loss of livelihood, physical injuries and mental
agony, pursuant to his representation dated 22.07.2021.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated as an
accused in Crime No. 10 of 2014, registered for the offence under Section
302 IPC, relating to the murder of one Rajendran. According to the
petitioner, the then Inspector of Police, without conducting a proper
investigation, deliberately implicated him in the murder case, though the
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
actual perpetrator was someone else. It is his further allegation that he
was illegally detained for nearly two weeks and subjected to severe
physical assault and custodial torture. He would also allege that the
confession attributed to him was obtained by force and that the
investigating officer fabricated records as though incriminating materials
had been recovered pursuant to his confession.
3. The petitioner would further contend that, during the subsequent
investigation, one Kalimuthu was identified as the actual perpetrator of
the murder. Consequently, a further investigation was conducted and an
additional report was filed arraying the said Kalimuthu as an accused.
Ultimately, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, by judgement dated 22.03.2021 in S.C.
No. 180 of 2014. According to the petitioner, the circumstances leading
to his implication and subsequent acquittal clearly establish the arbitrary
and malicious conduct of the then investigating officer.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner that, on account of the alleged
custodial torture, he sustained physical injuries resulting in partial
disability. He was eking out of his livelihood by running a petty shop and,
due to his false implication in a murder case, he lost his reputation and
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
goodwill in the locality. Consequently, customers stopped visiting his
shop, compelling him to close the same. Hence, he seeks compensation of
Rs. 25 lakhs from the respondents.
th
5. The 5 respondent, Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai
District, has filed a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the
st
1 respondent, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According
th
to the 5 respondent, Crime No. 10 of 2014 was registered on the
complaint given by one Madhavan concerning the murder of his brother
Rajendran, whose body was found with multiple stab injuries on
06.02.2014. The petitioner was originally arrayed as an accused during
th
the investigation conducted by the then Inspector of Police, who is the 4
respondent herein.
6. It is further stated that the investigation disclosed that the
petitioner and the deceased had certain disputes relating to money
transactions. During the investigation, the petitioner had allegedly evaded
police enquiry. However, subsequently, he voluntarily surrendered before
the Village Administrative Officer and his confession statement was
recorded by the investigating officer. Based on the said confession, the
blood stained shirt allegedly worn by the petitioner and the knife said to
have been used in the commission of the offence were recovered.
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
th
7. The 5 respondent specifically denied the allegation of custodial
torture and illegal detention. It is contended that the petitioner did not
raise any complaint regarding physical assault or custodial violence either
before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand or during
subsequent proceedings. Even after his release on bail, no complaint was
lodged against the concerned police officials until the conclusion of the
criminal proceedings.
8. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai
acquitted the petitioner, holding that the prosecution had failed to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in view of the
subsequent developments and the additional final report implicating one
Kalimuthu in the said offence. It is therefore contended that mere
acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle an accused to
claim compensation from the State. The allegations of malafides,
fabrication of evidence and custodial torture are specifically denied.
According to the respondents, the claim involves oral and documentary
evidence, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in a Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
9. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court in D.Arun vs. P.Subramani and Others,
W.A. No. 349 of 2016 , wherein it was held that mere acquittal or
discharge in criminal proceedings would not, by itself, establish
malicious prosecution. The petitioner must establish that the prosecution
was initiated with an oblique motive and for the purpose of harassing
him.
10. Heard. Records perused.
11. At the outset, it is to be observed that the power of the
constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
award compensation for established violations of fundamental rights is
well recognised. However, such power cannot be exercised mechanically
whenever a person accused of a criminal offence is subsequently
acquitted.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that he was
illegally detained for nearly two weeks and subjected to physical assault
th
by the respondent police. However, the 5 respondent has specifically
denied the said allegations and has stated that the petitioner voluntarily
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer and that his
confession was recorded during the course of investigation. It is also
brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner did not raise any
complaint regarding custodial torture either before the jurisdictional
Magistrate at the time of remand or immediately after his release on bail.
No contemporaneous complaint or medical record establishing the
alleged physical assault has been placed before this Court. The allegation
of partial disability is also not supported by any medical certificate or
other material establishing that such disability was caused by the alleged
police assault. Similarly, the alleged loss of livelihood and closure of the
petty shop have not been substantiated by any independent documentary
material.
13. Applying the principle laid down in the judgement of D.Arun
vs. P.Subramani and Others in WA No. 349 of 2016 to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has not placed sufficient
th
materials to establish that the 4 respondent had any personal animosity
or ulterior motive in implicating him in Crime No. 10 of 2014. This Court
is conscious of the fact that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted and
that the consequences of being implicated in a murder case can be
extremely serious. However, the constitutional Court cannot presume
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
malicious prosecution merely from the fact of acquittal. Therefore,
adjudication of the petitioner's claim would necessarily require a detailed
examination of the original case diary, remand records, medical records,
recovery mahazars, statements of witnesses, further investigation records
and the judgement of acquittal. Such an exercise would involve
appreciation of disputed facts and evidence. This Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
undertake a roving enquiry into the alleged malicious conduct of the
investigating officer in the absence of sufficient undisputed materials
establishing a clear violation of fundamental rights.
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has not established, through the
materials placed before this Court, a clear and demonstrable violation of
his fundamental rights warranting the award of compensation of Rs. 25
lakhs in the present writ proceedings. Consequently, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to grant the relief sought for in the present Writ
Petition.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty
is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
appropriate forum in accordance with law. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mar/skn
To
1. The Home Secretary,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
4. Kulothungan
The Inspector of Police,
Karur Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai District.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
mar/skn
WP(MD) No. 19330 of 2021
05-11-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:28:49 pm )