HC directs Home Department to pay compensation to man against whom case was foisted

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Home Department to pay ₹8 lakh as compensation to a man from Thanjavur district for psychological suffering, social stigma and loss of job opportunity. The court held that the police had foisted a criminal case against him.

The court was hearing the petition filed by Sarathkumar who sought quashing of the proceedings pending against him. Madukkur Police in Thanjavur district had registered the case against him and others for the offence under Section 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) of IPC in 2017. The FIR was kept pending. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition to quash the proceedings.

Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that in order to make out an offence under Section 399 of IPC there must be five or more persons, they must have made preparation and the preparation was for the purpose of committing dacoity. Mere assembly of a group of persons is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 399 of IPC. There must be some materials to show that assembly was for the purpose of preparation to commit dacoity.

In the case, there was no material to establish the preparation made by the accused. For the incident said to have taken place in 2017, the police have not filed their final report for the past eight years. Moreover the FIR was sent to the court only in 2025. It is clear that the FIR in this case has been sent only after a period of eight years in violation of Section 157 of CrPC and PSO 552, the court said.

All these show that the criminal case has been foisted against the petitioner. Therefore, the court is obligated to quash the FIR that is pending against the petitioner, the court said.

The court observed that it was a clear case where the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated. The right to life does not refer to mere physical act of breathing or living. It consists of a much wider range of rights including the right to live with dignity and reputation.

The court was inclined to award compensation to alleviate the suffering of the petitioner. At the same time, this would also serve as a deterrent to the authorities to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are hereafter not violated in such a manner, the court observed.