The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thiruvattar woman was arrested on 16.02.2010 in Crime No.91 of 2010 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and detained 13 days on a complaint the Court found was fabricated from blank signed papers of a traffic offender. A DSP, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil enquiry reported on 29.04.2011 that the case was foisted and recommended withdrawal; the charge sheet was quashed on 26.06.2015 but no action was taken against the erring officials. On 29.03.2023 the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held the foisted case and arrest sullied her privacy and reputation, for which the State is responsible. The Court directed the State to pay Rs.2,00,000 compensation within 8 weeks, with liberty to recover from the erring police 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 29 March 2023 in W.P.(MD) No.2584 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2016, the Madras High Court (Coram: R. Vijayakumar, J.) returned findings adverse to the Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, 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 29 March 2023 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.
“In view of the above said undisputed facts, it is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible.” (para 25)
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.
