The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of Anjugramam Police Station challenged the SHRC recommendation of Rs.30,000 compensation to complainant [name withheld], recovery of the sum from his salary, and related disciplinary action. The court found that he had refused to receive an Anjugramam woman's cognizable complaint about the demolition of her compound wall, threatened to book her instead, and drove her out of the station, making the elderly woman run from pillar to post. The court held that the SHRC had given him full opportunity, disbelieved his bandobust-duty alibi and compromise document, and that the State, having accepted the recommendation, could recover the compensation from the delinquent officer under D.K. Basu. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. 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 September 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.12316 of 2010, the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) returned findings adverse to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 30,000.
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 September 2010 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 petitioner having harassed the first respondent by not even taking the complaint sent by the first respondent on file, made the old woman to run around helplessly.” (para 7)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.
(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.
