CW-1998-0012Tiruvallur, Tamil NaduJudgment 20 November 1998

Tiruttani Woman vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

The Madras High Court (N.K. Jain, J.) allowed a mother's habeas corpus petition for her two sons, a Tiruttani man and a Tiruttani man, arrested on 24 May 1998 in a Pallipet murder case (Cr. No. 216/1998) after a half-burnt body was found. The court found that even after the supposed victim [name withheld] was found alive at Tirupati and stated under s.164 CrPC that the detenus were not responsible, police inaction kept the brothers in the Tiruvellore sub-jail. Holding their personal liberty was deprived by the carelessness, inaction and unfair investigation of the police, the court set the detenus at liberty and directed the State to pay Rs.50,000 to each of them directly within two months. The State was left free to take action against the officers concerned. 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 20 November 1998, the Madras High Court (Coram: N.K. Jain, J.) returned findings adverse to the Police personnel, Pallipet Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
TN 12 CW 0001
Case reference
1999 Cri LJ 1915
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: N.K. Jain, J.), 20 November 1998
Officer(s) at the material time
Police personnel, Pallipet Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“On considering the overall facts and the legal position, we are fully convinced that this is a fit case where personal liberty of two persons, has been deprived of by the carelessness, inaction and unfair investigation of the police, which …” (at para 10)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
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 20 November 1998 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.

“On considering the overall facts and the legal position, we are fully convinced that this is a fit case where personal liberty of two persons, has been deprived of by the carelessness, inaction and unfair investigation of the police, which …” (para 10)

Institutional response

1
20 Nov 1998

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 1999 Cri LJ 1915
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.