Crime Remaining Undetected Due To Police Lapse Violates Victim's Right Under Article 21, State Obligated To Compensate: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a crime remains undetected due to the inaction of the investigating agency, it violates the victim's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court added that the State, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must step in and provide monetary relief to the victims in such cases. “When a crime remains “undetected” due to...
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a crime remains undetected due to the inaction of the investigating agency, it violates the victim's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court added that the State, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must step in and provide monetary relief to the victims in such cases.
“When a crime remains “undetected” due to lapses or inaction of the investigating machinery, and the victim is left without recovery or closure for years, it constitutes a violation of Article 21. The Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, must step in to provide limited monetary relief as a measure of public law compensation,” the court said.
Justice B. Pugalendhi held that such compensation to the victims is to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. The court added that such compensation is a reminder that justice delayed/denied at the stage of investigation is a grave violation.
“The object of such compensation is not to punish individual officers or to substitute civil damages, but to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. It also serves as a reminder that justice delayed or denied at the investigative stage is as grave a violation as any miscarriage at the trial stage,” the court added.
The court was hearing a batch of cases where directions had been sought to the police to either conduct further investigation, or to transfer the investigation to another agency or to file a final report within the time frame fixed by the court. The cases involved theft or loss of property and the police had filed a final report as “Undetected” in all the cases.
The court noted that the State, as guardian of public safety and custodian of justice, has a solemn duty to ensure that wrongdoers are identified and the victims are not left remediless. The court added that the State had a responsibility to investigate crime effectively.
The court also added that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution included the right to live with dignity, security and protection of one's property. The court added that when a person reported the commission of an offence, he was exercising his fundamental right to seek protection from the State, and correspondingly, the State would have a duty to conduct a fair, competent, and diligent investigation.
In the present cases, the court perused the CD files and noted that the investigation had not been conducted with the degree of diligence that the law demands. The court noted that examination of witnesses, verification of ex convict registers, use of forensic tools, review of CCTV footage, etc was not done in the present case.
The court also called for a report from the State Machinery. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (High Court Cases Monitoring Cell) informed the court that a committee headed by the ADGP, State Crime Records Bureau, had made certain recommendations and placed them on record. The committee recommended that before filing “Undetected” reports, all investigative steps must be exhausted and the complainant must be informed.
It also recommended continued monitoring of similar cases through weekly “Crime and Occurrence (C&O)” sheets and effective utilisation of the Register of undetected cases. As per the recommendations, even after filing an “Undetected” report, the officers must stay vigilant and if, during future investigations, any person confesses to having committed similar offences, the officer should immediately inform the same to the court for further investigation.
The court appreciated the suggestions and remarked that it instils confidence in the system that no victim would be left without the pursuit of justice.
Noting that victims in the present case were left without remedy, the court observed that they needed to be compensated. The court thus directed the Home Department to pay monetary compensation equivalent to 30% of the value of the property stolen reported in each of the cases.
The court made it clear that this payment would be recoverable from the petitioners if the stolen property was subsequently recovered. The court also directed the Director General of Police to implement the recommendations made by the committee headed by the ADGP.
The court further directed the DGP to issue circulars to the officers reiterating that filing an undetected report did not terminate the investigation and that the cases must be periodically reviewed. The DGP (Training) was also directed to design a refresher course for investigating officers on evidence preservation, forensic procedures and victim communication.
The court also suggested that the state could set up a Special Investigation Team comprising experts in each District to investigate cases classified as “undetected” for more than 5 years. The court directed that the team must be provided with the necessary infrastructure, more powers and more pay and upon identification of the accused, the State could reward the officers to encourage them further.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Vashik Ali, Mr. D. S. Haroon Rasheed, Mr. V. S. Kumara Guru, Mr. S. Gokulraj, Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Mr. J. Anandkumar, Mr. S. Mahendrapathy,
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.10290, 10329, 10659, 11358, 12469, 12555 & 13002 of 2025