The court emphasizes the need for appropriate compensation in custodial violence cases while maintaining rights to ongoing legal proceedings.

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.]

Captioned 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed inter alia assailing an 'order dated 12.12.2019 made by the 'Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission' ['SHRC']

vide SHRC Nos.1235 of 2016 and 1479 of 2016' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

2. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate for the State are before us.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.06.2025, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that he would give up R4 and learned counsel on record has made an endorsement in this regard in the case bundle and the same has also been reproduced in the order dated 03.06.2025. The said endorsement made on 03.06.2025 by learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is recorded vide this order. Registry to carry out necessary amendment in the case bundle.

4. This is a consent order. Therefore, we refrain from dilating on facts and we deem it appropriate to write that it will suffice to say that this is a case of established / proved custodial violence.

5. Writ petitioner's son one Mr.Mugesh, who was taken for interrogation by the police on 11.03.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. was, according to the writ petitioner, subjected to custodial violence. 6. SHRC took suo-motu cognizance of the matter on the same being reported by the Fourth Estate (to be noted, SHRC took cognizance on 13.03.2016) and made the impugned order. In and vide the impugned order, SHRC, after coming to the conclusion that custodial violence has been established based on evidence before it, ordered compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs. State did not assail this order. Therefore, the finding of SHRC qua custodial violence has not been subjected to challenge.

7. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that he is concerned only with enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner very fairly submitted that compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs as opposed Rs.2 Lakhs ordered by SHRC vide impugned order would suffice.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General, very fairly took instructions and agreed. Therefore, this is a consent order as already alluded to supra.

9. We are informed that Rs.2 Lakhs compensation ordered by SHRC has already been paid by R6 to writ petitioner and therefore, further compensation to be paid now is Rs.3 Lakhs.

10. Before we write the operative portion of this order and part with this matter, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the question of quantum of compensation in cases of custodial violence / custodial death will be gone into in the light of other pronouncements / case laws / precedents in a case where there is a contest. To add clarity and specificity, we also write that the method / formula to be adopted for computation of compensation is left open for a legal drill in another matter where there is a contest.

11. We are informed that another proceedings pertaining to victim being FIR No.1130/2016 for offence under Section 174 of 'the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ' {hereinafter 'Cr.Pc' for the sake of brevity} on the file of F2, Egmore Police Station is pending. We make it clear that this order will not impact proceedings pursuant to this FIR i.e., that this order will neither impede nor serve as an impetus to either side. For the sake of capturing facts to the extent necessary for appreciating this order, we also deem it appropriate to record the stated position that the victim, Mugesh died on 12.06.2016 but the question as to w