Dismissed

R. Shankar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Mar 2022WA(MD)/163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition for malicious prosecution. The Court held that compensation cannot be awarded before the accused is acquitted in the underlying criminal case, as complainment must be pending decree issuance.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal and the underlying Writ Petition seeking compensation for malicious prosecution were dismissed.

R. Shankar Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.163 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.03.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.A(MD)No.163 of 2022

¶7

R.Shankar :Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

.vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chief Secretary,

¶10

Chief Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.Additional Chief Secretary, Tamilnadu Government,

¶12

Chief Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

3.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police,

¶14

Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,

Mylapore,Chennai.

4.Mr.Harikrishnan,

Inspector of Police,

Thackalay Polic Station,

¶19

Kanyakumari District.

¶20

Mr.Charles,

¶21

Inspector of Police, Thiruvattaru Police Station, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents/Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order dated 12.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.15927 of 2020 on the file of this Court by allowing this writ appeal and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate disciplinary action against the erred police officials who has implicated the appellant herein into false case and the appellant may be awarded compensation of Rupees 50 lakhs for implicating him into false case by the erred police officials.

¶23

Prayer in WP(MD). 15927/ 2020 :

¶24

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing respondents to take https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

1/3

¶26

W.A(MD)No.163 of 2022

¶27

appropriate disciplinary action against the erred police officials who implicated the petitioner into false case and he may be awarded a compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs for implicating him into false case by the erred police official, within the time limit as fixed by this Honourable High Court.

¶28

For Appellant :Mr.K.Raghul Priyan

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J. AND

¶31

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

¶32

The writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation for malicious prosecution has been dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground that the petitioner has not been diligent in cooperating with the Court for completion of trial in C.C.No.964 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram.

¶33

It is seen that the said Calendar Case has been kept pending for nearly four years without any progress because of the noncooperation of the appellant. It is also seen that the appellant is an accused in almost 25 cases.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the fact that the appellant was in prison on the date of occurrence is proved beyond doubt and therefore, the prosecution itself is malicious.

¶35

The fact that the prosecution is malicious prosecution and the appellant is entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution is to be considered only upon acquittal of the appellant in the said criminal case. Pending criminal case, this Court cannot go into the question as to whether the prosecution is malicious or not.

¶36

In view of the same, we do not find any error in the dismissal of the writ petition. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed. In the event the criminal Court finds that the prosecution is malicious, it is open to the appellant to seek compensation and dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way.

¶37

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

2/3

¶42

W.A(MD)No.163 of 2022

¶43

¶44

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Chief Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Additional Chief Secretary, Tamilnadu Government, Chief Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶45

3.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.K.K.SAMY, Advocate ( SR-11922[F] dated 14/03/2022 )

¶47

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.163 of 2022 10.03.2022

¶48

PM MS/23.03.2022/3P.5C

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

3/3

R. Shankar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Shankar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kannan Vs The Superintendent of Police

V. Vaiyanan, Vs Vimala

Deviranai.S Vs the Authorized Officer

Sankar Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Mohan Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Karuthakannan Vs v.Paulraj