Madurai, Nov. 25 - In a rare but telling move, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to compensate seven complainants whose theft cases have remained unsolved for years. Justice B. Pugalendhi, delivering a common order in a batch of petitions, said the State cannot “wash its hands” merely because investigations hit a dead end.
The petitions involved housebreaking and theft cases from Sivagangai, Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Karur and Pudukottai - some dating back to 2015 - all of which were closed as undetected despite repeated follow-ups by victims.
Read also: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Cancellation and Modification Pleas in Anisur Rahaman Murder Trial
Background
Most petitioners were ordinary citizens - a retired officer, a serving Army personnel’s family, parents attending a hospital emergency, and a woman who left town for a family function. Each returned home to find locks broken and gold, cash or valuables missing.
Yet, police investigations either stalled or concluded without identifying the offenders. Some petitioners even alleged that CCTV footage, forensic leads and departmental memoranda pointing out lapses were ignored. In a few cases, complainants said they did not even receive the required closure notice.
“This is not just about stolen gold,” a lawyer whispered outside court. “It’s about people losing trust.”
Read also: Kerala High Court refuses pre-arrest bail to Kollam cashew trader in ₹25.5-crore money-laundering
Court’s Observations
Justice Pugalendhi did not mince words. The bench noted that filing an undetected report does not end the State’s responsibility. Calling attention to constitutional guarantees, the Court observed, “When the State assumes exclusive authority to investigate crimes, it must ensure that victims are not left remediless.”
The judge also highlighted sloppy investigative patterns - delayed witness examinations, poor forensic follow-up, minimal use of technology, and ignoring instructions from senior officers. “This pattern cannot be brushed aside as isolated inefficiency,” the Court remarked.
At one point, the bench reflected on victim distress, stating, “Their stolen properties represent not only material loss but also a deep sense of helplessness.”
It also reminded police authorities that an undetected status is temporary - the investigation must legally continue and be periodically reviewed. The Court appreciated the Police Department’s recent internal recommendations but insisted that accountability must translate into action.
Read also: J&K High Court Rejects Petition Seeking Skilled-Wages Classification, Says Computer Knowledge
Decision
Ordering systemic repair, the Court directed the State Home Department to pay 30% of the stolen property’s value to each petitioner within 12 weeks. The amount may be recovered later if the accused are traced and the property retrieved.
Further, the Director General of Police was instructed to:
- Inform complainants before filing undetected reports
- Maintain and analyse the Register of Undetected Cases
- Use weekly crime review sheets to track progress
- Issue a circular clarifying that undetected cases remain open
- Conduct refresher training for investigating officers
The Court also suggested creating specialised district-level units to reopen long-pending undetected theft cases.
With these directions, all seven petitions were disposed of - giving victims at least partial closure, even if justice remains incomplete.
Case Title: Vallikannu v The District Superintendent of Police
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Vashik Ali, Mr. D. S. Haroon Rasheed, Mr. V. S. Kumara Guru, Mr. S. Gokulraj, Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Mr. J. Anandkumar, Mr. S. Mahendrapathy,
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.10290, 10329, 10659, 11358, 12469, 12555 & 13002 of 2025