State investigative failure in criminal cases, specifically resulting in 'undetected' status without progress, constitutes a breach of fundamental rights under Article 21. Courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction to award monetary compensation to victims as a public law remedy, affirming State accountability for systemic failures in the justice process.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to life and liberty - Obligation of State - Victimology - Where criminal investigations into theft or property loss result in 'undetected' reports due to systemic failure or lack of progress, the State violates its constitutional obligation to provide justice and protection to citizens - Such failure by investigating machinery entitles victims to 'public law' compensation as a measure of redressal. (Paras 37, 44, 48)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (or equivalent) - Power of judicial review under Article 226 - Jurisdiction to grant monetary relief - Courts possess inherent power to secure ends of justice when State investigative machinery fails; such power includes directing interim monetary compensation to acknowledge systemic negligence and protect fundamental rights of victims, independent of civil liability remedies. (Paras 45, 46, 47)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the Court seeking a transfer of investigation following the loss of household valuables, as the police had closed the case as 'undetected' without making any significant progress or providing closure to the victim despite a lengthy wait.

Findings of Court:
The State, having assumed exclusive control over investigation, holds a corresponding responsibility for its success. When the State fails to identify the accused or effectively investigate, it constitutes a breach of the constitutional duty to protect the victim's fundamental rights. Consequently, the Court held it necessary to award monetary compensation as a public law remedy to address the systemic failure.

Issues: The central issue was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and inherent powers, could mandate the State to provide monetary compensation to a victim when a criminal investigation is filed as 'undetected' due to administrative neglect.

Ratio Decidendi: Justice is incomplete if the harm suffered by a victim is not acknowledged or remedied. The State's failure to conduct a fair and effective investigation constitutes an infringement of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, thereby necessitating the invocation of the Court's jurisdiction to impose corrective responsibility, including the award of monetary relief, to affirm State accountability.

Result: Petition disposed of; State direct to pay 30% of the value of reported stolen property as monetary compensation.

ORDER

Seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.67 of 2021 from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent or any other competent investigation agency, this criminal original petition is filed.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint regarding the loss of 16 sovereigns of gold jewellery, however, there has been no substantial progress in the investigation and hence, the present petition has been filed.

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, submitted that the case has been closed as “undetected”and RCS notice has also been served on the petitioner on 25.03.2025 itself.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. 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 has further responsibility to the victim. Further question is whether the Court has legal duty to award compensation irrespective of conviction or acquittal. When the State fails to identify the accused or fails to collect and present acceptable evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. Victim of a crime or his kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the victim. There are systemic or other failures responsible for crime remaining unpunished which need to be addressed by improvement in quality and integrity of those who deal with investigation and prosecution, apart from improvement of infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the only step in providing justice to victim. Victim expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures, including monetary compensation. Such compensation has been directed to be paid in public law remedy with reference to Article 21. In numerous cases, to do justice to the victims, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed payment of monetary compensation as well as rehabilitative settlement where State or other authorities failed to protect the life and liberty of victims. ...

7. Expanding scope of Article 21 is not l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22569

Cases Referred (5)