The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. G. Barathi petitioned for her son [name withheld], seized from home at 2.30 a.m. on 16.06.2012 by Sholavaram/Minjur police, beaten with lathis and boots, and held in illegal custody with a false case fabricated against him. On the court's direction the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur held a judicial enquiry (statements 28.01.2013, station inspection 19.02.2013, report 22.04.2013), and the Duty Assistant Surgeon's report showed treatment in custody from 06-22.07.2012. The court held assault and ill-treatment in police custody established and awarded Rs.50,000 compensation payable by the State within four weeks. It further directed a departmental enquiry to fix liability on those in charge at arrest and interrogation, with proportional recovery from the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 20 September 2013 in W.P. No.16352 of 2012, the Madras High Court (Coram: N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Madras High Court judgment dated 20 September 2013 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“Considering the overall aspects in this case, I am of the view that the son of the petitioner viz., a Tiruvallur man, who was assaulted and ill-treated in police custody, due to which he sustained injuries, for which he took …” (para 23)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
