IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.4456 of 2020 V.Sumathi W/o.Vincent ... Petitioner vs.

1. The State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu

143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road Chennai-600 028.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Home Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.

3. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

4. Saravanan Office of Commissioner's Office Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

5. Senthilkumar Home Guard Officer of Commissioner of Police Office Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

6. The Secretary Public (Law and Order-A) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. Respondents * R4 given up vide order dated 06.06.2025 in W.P.No.4456 of 2020.

* R6 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 05.06.2025 in W.P.No.4456 of 2020.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made in SHRC Nos.1235/2016 and 1479 of 2016 dated 12.12.2019 on the file of first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, to increase the said Rs.2 Lakhs and grant equitable compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.S.Arasakumar Government Advocate, for R1, R2, R3 and R6 *****

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 i