The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice S. Nagamuthu held that Kandhili police kept engineering professor a Kandhili man in illegal custody between 7 and 11 September 2014 (SP report finding, para 16; the petitioner had alleged custody from 5 September, para 9) and then falsely implicated him in a ganja case (Crime No.240 of 2014), in which he spent about 15 days in prison (para 16). The court accepted the fresh-investigation report of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural, which found the case not true (para 15), the Government agreeing with the report (para 18), and quashed the FIR (paras 29-30). As a warning against registration of false cases, the court awarded Rs.1,00,000 token compensation payable by the State within three months, and directed the DGP to forward the order to all district SPs (para 30). It left further action against Inspector to the Government and declined to order registration of a criminal case against the officers (para 20). The FIR account (secret information, 1.5 kg ganja seizure, arrest at noon on 11.09.2014) is set out at para 6; the Advocate General pleaded the young Inspector may be pardoned (para 18). 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 23 December 2014 in Crl.O.P. Nos.26847 and 26948 of 2014, the Madras High Court (Coram: S. Nagamuthu, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station; Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
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 23 December 2014 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.
“Having regard to the said settled position of law, I am of the view, in the instant case, since the State is not in issue that there was violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner by implicating him in a …” (para 28)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
(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.
