ORDER :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2025 to recover the jewels by conducting further investigation or to compensate the petitioner since the case was originally closed as undeducted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint with respect to the theft of 22 Sovereigns of his gold jewels on 20.06.2010, following which a FIR in Crime No.338 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of IPC [ Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS] on 20.06.2010. After investigation, the same was closed as undetected. Pursuant to the same the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.4094 of 2014 seeking further investigation and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, by order dated 29.01.2014 directed the investigating officer to conduct further investigation and ordered to file a final report as expeditiously as possible. Despite lapse of eight months, there was no proper progress in the matter. Even the petitioner was not called for any enquiry and they have failed in their duty. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court earlier in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15255 of 2014 and this Court on 21.08.2014 passed an order directing the respondent to contact further inquiry and final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the recent order. Even thereafter, there is no progress in the investigation. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the case has been closed as “undetected” and RCS notice has also been served on the petitioner. 

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case should be considered for grant of compensation, a proper recommendation can be addressed to the Home Secretary and on receipt of the same, final call will be taken.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. In a similar nature of this case, this Court passed an order in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10290 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattiram and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh,  AIR 2012 SC 1485, emphasised the concept of “victimology” and recognised that criminal jurisprudence must evolve to protect victims as rights-bearing participants, not as silent spectators. The victim’s expectation that the State will protect him, investigate the crime and restore his loss is a legitimate one arising out of Article 21. The relevant portion is extracted as under:-

“50. ... The criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. ...”

37. When that expectation is defeated due to failure of the State machinery, the victim’s fundamental right to life and dignity stands infringed. The responsibility of the State does not end with registration of an FIR or filing of an “undetected” report. It continues until justice, in some form, is provided to the victim.

38. The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Abdul Rashid v. State of Orissa and Others,  2013 SCC OnLine Ori 493, held that when the State fails to identify the accused or collect acceptable evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. The Court reasoned that victims of crime have a legitimate expectation that the State will protect their rights and, when it fails to do so, it must compensate them for that failure. The relevant portion is extracted as under:-

“6. Question for consideration is whether the responsibility of the State ends merely by registering a case, conducting investigation and initiating prosecution and whether apart from taking these steps, the State h