The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. P. Rajakumari sought a judicial-magistrate inquiry and independent investigation into the alleged custodial rape and torture of her mother [name withheld, survivor] at Udumalpet police station in August 2014. The court held there was enough material to warrant registration of an FIR without any prior magisterial/RDO fact-finding (para 36), noting a three-week-old fracture of the distal phalanx found only on the court-ordered referral, coinciding with the admitted period of police custody (para 46). The court directed the CBI Joint Director to record the victim statement, register an FIR against the officers she identifies, entrust investigation to an officer not below Deputy Commissioner of Police rank, and file a report within three months (para 50, dirs 1-3). It ordered Rs.2 lakh interim compensation within two weeks, recoverable from those responsible upon conviction (para 50, dir 5). The State, through the Additional Advocate General, opposed entrusting investigation to any outside agency and sought a PSO-151 or superior-police-officer enquiry instead (paras 38-39). 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 24 September 2014 in W.P. No.23320 of 2014, the Madras High Court (Coram: V. Ramasubramanian, J.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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 24 September 2014 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.
“It may also be necessary to award interim compensation to the petitioner's mother, in view of the fact (1) that injuries on her person are now established (2) that even as per the recording made by the Medical Officer of …” (para 46)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.
(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.
