CW-2006-0003Chennai, Tamil NaduJudgment 6 March 2006

Chennai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ appeal of K. Kabali of Mylapore, whose 22-year-old son [name withheld] was forcibly thrown into a police jeep by traffic police near Luz Corner Signal on 12 April 1997 and found dead the next day, directing the State to pay a further Rs 3 lakh compensation under Article 226 in addition to the Rs 50,000 ex gratia already sanctioned. The Court relied on the Maruthamuthu Commission of Enquiry findings, accepted by the Government and tabled in the Assembly, that the action of Traffic Inspector and Police Constable was not in accordance with rules and their negligence caused the death. It held compensation under Article 226 appropriate where violation of fundamental rights by public functionaries is established, and noted the Government had ordered departmental action against both personnel for dereliction of duty. 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 6 March 2006 in W.A. No. 587/2001 (against W.P. No. 12633/1999), the Madras High Court (Coram: P. Sathasivam, J.A.K. Sampathkumar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Grade I Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station; Traffic Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
TN 01 CW 0004
Case reference
W.A. No. 587/2001 (against W.P. No. 12633/1999)
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: P. Sathasivam, J.A.K. Sampathkumar, JJ.), 6 March 2006
Officer(s) at the material time
Grade I Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station; Traffic Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“It is clear from the findings of the Commission of Enquiry which was accepted by the Government that though the death was not due to police torture, undoubtedly, the death occurred due to the negligence of the police personnel.” (at para 13)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 6 March 2006 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial deathPrimary
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.

“It is clear from the findings of the Commission of Enquiry which was accepted by the Government that though the death was not due to police torture, undoubtedly, the death occurred due to the negligence of the police personnel.” (para 13)

Institutional response

1
6 Mar 2006

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: W.A. No. 587/2001 (against W.P. No. 12633/1999)
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.