The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. the survivor was admittedly taken from her Panruti home to Tindivanam Police Station on 26.01.2011 by mistaken identity, illegally detained over seven hours, beaten with a lathi and molested inside the station. Her SHRC complaint was dismissed for default and her writ petition dismissed on 08.11.2012 for not naming the policemen. On 23.11.2021 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held both dismissals wrong, recorded prima facie satisfaction with the custodial-violence complaint, and invoked public-law compensation under D.K. Basu. The Court set aside both orders, directed Rs.3,00,000 interim compensation within four weeks, and remanded the matter to the SHRC to identify the officers and enquire afresh. 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 23 November 2021 in W.A. No.2558 of 2013, the Madras High Court (Coram: T. Raja, V. Sivagnanam, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Police personnel, Tindivanam Police Station, Viluppuram District, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 23 November 2021 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.
“For all the aforementioned reasons, having been prima facie satisfied with the complaint of custodial violence, for outraging the modesty of the appellant, being the mother of two female children, while setting aside the order passed in the writ petition …” (para 24)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.
(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.
