Madras High Court
M.Radhakrishnan vs The Union Territory Of Puducherry on 3 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
M.Radhakrishnan,
S/o.Murugesan
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union Territory of Puducherry,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Puducherry Union, Puducherry.
2.The Director General of Police,
Puducherry Union, Puducherry.
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to consider the representation of petitioner dated 02.07.2014 and to take
appropriate action against the police officers who were suspected to be
involved in the murder of the petitioner's son Jayakrishnan @ Jagan in
custody, and to award compensation to the petitioner's family for the
custodial killing of the petitioner's son.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar,
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to deal with the representation made
by the petitioner dated 02.07.2014 wherein the petitioner is seeking for
appropriate action against the police officials suspected to be involved in
the murder of the petitioner’s son while he was in their custody.
2. Heard Mr.P.Pugalenthi, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
respondents.
3. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents shows that the
petitioner’s son was arrayed as an accused in a case and he was taken in a
police van to the Court from the jail. While so, the adversaries attacked
the police van by hurling bombs and thereby, the petitioner’s son was
killed inside the police van. Based on this attack, a First Information
Report came to be registered in Crime No.91 of 2012 by the Inspector of
Police, Aiyankuppam Police Station. After the investigation, a police
report was filed against 27 accused persons. The trial was conducted
before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in S.C.No.9 of
2013 and after trial, all the accused persons were acquitted by judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
dated 12.12.2014.
4. The main ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
is that when the petitioner's son was in police custody, it is the duty of the
police to ensure his safety and security. Hence, for the said incident, the
State has to pay compensation to the petitioner since admittedly the
incident had taken place while the petitioner’s son was in the custody of
the police.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that an enquiry was
conducted under Section 176(1)(A) Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate II,
Puducherry and a report was submitted on 30.04.2013 to the effect that
there is no manner of any suspicion or foul play in the matter. This report
was also marked as a document in S.C.No.9 of 2013 as Ex.P142. Hence,
it was contended that the demise of the petitioner cannot be considered to
be a custodial death as was projected by the petitioner.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the demise of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
petitioner has taken place due to the attack made by the rival gang. In
fact, in that attack, even the police officials were injured. Unfortunately,
the case ended in acquittal in the year 2014. An enquiry was conducted
by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Puducherry, under Section
176(1)(A) Cr.P.C and a report has been submitted. During enquiry, the
police officials, who escorted the accused person, were enquired.
Therefore, the respondents are taking a stand that the demise of the
petitioner’s son cannot be considered as a custodial death and
consequently, the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of any
compensation.
7. In view of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to
the second respondent to convey to the petitioner the decision taken on
the representation made by the petitioner on 02.07.2014 seeking for
compensation, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
03.06.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
gm
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
Union Territory of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Puducherry Union, Puducherry.
2.The Director General of Police,
Puducherry Union, Puducherry.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
Writ Petition No.21347 of 2014
03.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 11:48:17 am )
