State's failure to effectively investigate crimes violates Article 21, requiring compensation to victims and systemic reforms

Madras High Court Directs State to Compensate Victims for Lapses in Crime Investigations Court Orders Systemic Reforms and Compensation for Victims Whose Cases Remain "Undetected" Due to Ineffective Investigations

In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, presided over by Justice B. Pugalendhi, issued a directive mandating the State to provide compensation to victims of theft whose cases were closed as "undetected" due to ineffective investigations. The judgment was delivered on November 25, 2025, in response to a batch of petitions filed by victims seeking redressal for the State's failure to conduct effective investigations into their complaints of theft and housebreaking.

The court recognized the State's duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to conduct diligent investigations, noting that the failure to do so constitutes a violation of the victims' right to life and personal liberty. Justice Pugalendhi emphasized that the State's responsibility does not end with filing an FIR or an "undetected" report but extends to ensuring justice for victims, including compensation for their losses.

In a series of petitions, the court examined cases where investigations had been perfunctory, with critical steps such as witness examination, forensic analysis, and review of CCTV footage either delayed or omitted. The court noted that such systemic neglect reflects a broader issue within the investigative machinery and highlighted the need for institutional reforms.

Consequently, the court ordered the State's Home Department to compensate the victims with an amount equivalent to 30% of the stolen property value. This compensation is to be recovered if the offender is later identified and the property retrieved. The judgment further directed the Director General of Police to implement recommendations from a committee led by the Additional Director General of Police, focusing on improving investigation processes and ensuring accountability.

Key directives include notifying complainants before filing undetected reports, using "Crime and Occurrence" sheets for information sharing, and maintaining a Register of Undetected Cases. The court also suggested establishing Special Investigation Teams for cases pending for more than five years, offering incentives to officers involved in solving such cases.

The court's decision underscores the shift towards a victim-centric approach in the criminal justice system, acknowledging the constitutional obligation to secure justice and protect fundamental rights. This judgment is expected to prompt significant changes in how police investigations are conducted and monitored, aiming to restore public confidence in the justice system.

Bottom Line:

State's failure to effectively investigate crimes and file "undetected" reports violates Article 21 of the Constitution, requiring compensation to victims and systemic reforms in criminal investigations.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  
• - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950  
• - Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  
• - Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India

Vallikannu v. District Superintendent of Police, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812914