The Madras High Court disposed of the petition of a Keelamangalam man, a primary-school teacher and accused No. 11 in Crime No. 156 of 1986, who remained under interim suspension for over six years because investigating officers never filed a final report and disobeyed two earlier High Court orders. The court recorded that Inspector retained the case diary for years, SP and Inspector failed to act, and SI closed a connected case, violating the petitioner's Article 21 rights. Holding the State bound to compensate, the court awarded Rs.20,000 payable within six weeks (recoverable from erring officials), vacated the stay and directed the charge-sheet within ten days, while dropping contempt. 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 February 1992 in Crl.M.P. No. 15045 of 1989, the Madras High Court returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Inspector, Keelamangalam Police Station; Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District; Inspector, Dharmapuri District; Sub-Inspector, Keelamangalam Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 20,000.
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 February 1992 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.
“The State is bound to compensate the petitioner. It cannot evade its responsibility, on the ground, that the acts done by the officials were individual wrongs or misdeeds.” (para 18-C)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.
(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.
