Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
Vallikannu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of individual cases of theft and complaints of insufficient investigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 14 , 17 , 20) |
| 2. systemic failures highlight the obligation of the state for fair investigation. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 34) |
| 3. compensation as a remedy for victims of undetected crimes. (Para 41 , 44) |
| 4. final directions issued to ensure accountability and compensation. (Para 49 , 51) |
COMMON ORDER
These batch of criminal original petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking appropriate directions to the respondent police either to conduct further investigation, or to transfer the investigation to another agency, or to file the final report within a time frame fixed by this Court, in respect of cases which have been reported as “Undetected”.
Crl.OP(MD)No.10290 of 2025:-
2.The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.42 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 380, 454 and 457 IPC on 03.06.2022. The petitioner, who resides at Karaikudi, had gone to attend a function at Pallathur and thereafter to Neyveli to stay with her husband, who was employed at NLC. On 01.06.2022, she was informed that her house had been broken
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
