CW-2023-0033Chennai, Tamil NaduJudgment 14 June 2023

Chennai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

The Madras High Court (Justice Anita Sumanth) awarded Rs 20 lakh to ex-Sub-Inspector for illegal detention and custodial torture by R-7 K.K. Nagar police from 29 November to 3 December 2002. Pre-record custody, denied in police records, was proved because the police themselves took the petitioner (with his brother) to a private hospital and diagnostic centre and paid for treatment of his injuries. Calling the police records shamelessly false, the Court ordered payment by bank transfer in four weeks (8% interest on delay) and disciplinary proceedings against all three officers with enquiry concluded in 12 weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 14 June 2023 in W.P. No. 13488 of 2005, the Madras High Court (Coram: Anita Sumanth, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Sub-Inspector (L&O), R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Head Constable, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000).

Register number
TN 01 CW 0026
Case reference
W.P. No. 13488 of 2005
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: Anita Sumanth, J.), 14 June 2023
Officer(s) at the material time
Inspector of Police, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Sub-Inspector (L&O), R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Head Constable, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Such instances were both prior to and after 03.12.2002 and fortify the petitioner’s version of events, that he was in custody of the police even prior to 03.12.2002. This exposes yet again, the shamelessly false contents of the police records …” (at para 83)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

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 14 June 2023 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Such instances were both prior to and after 03.12.2002 and fortify the petitioner’s version of events, that he was in custody of the police even prior to 03.12.2002. This exposes yet again, the shamelessly false contents of the police records …” (para 83)

Institutional response

1
14 Jun 2023

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: W.P. No. 13488 of 2005
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.