Compensate victims of undetected theft cases, Madras HC directs state government

CHENNAI: The Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the state government to compensate victims of thefts in cases that went undetected.

Based on a complaint of one of the petitioners, a case was registered for the offences under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of the IPC on June 3, 2022.

The petitioner, who resides at Karaikudi, had gone to attend a function at Pallathur and thereafter to Neyveli to stay with her husband, who was employed at NLC. On June 1, 2022, she was informed that her house had been broken open. Upon returning, she found that jewels weighing 67 sovereigns and cash of Rs 1,57,800 were stolen.

The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the production of CCTV footage showing five unidentified persons breaking into her residence, no meaningful investigation has been conducted, and no final report has been filed even after more than three years.

Justice B Pugalendhi, after going through a batch of petitions seeking remedies for victims of theft crime, said once collective responsibility was assumed, the State became the guardian of public safety and the custodian of justice. The State’s solemn duty is to ensure that wrongdoers are identified and victims are not left remediless.

In his order, Justice Pugalendhi said when an individual reports the commission of a cognizable offence, he is exercising his fundamental right to seek protection from the State. Correspondingly, the State has a non-delegable duty to respond through a fair, competent and diligent investigation.

However, the issue before this Court does not end with the procedural compliance by the police. The question that necessarily arises is — what is the position of the victim when the offender remains untraced, and the crime continues to remain undetected for years together? The obligation of the State is not confined to bringing the offender to justice. It also extends to ensuring that the victim, who has suffered loss or injury, receives appropriate relief.

Therefore, when a crime remains “undetected” due to lapses or inaction of the investigating machinery, and the victim is left without recovery or closure for years, it constitutes a violation of Article 21. The Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, must step in to provide limited monetary relief as a measure of public law compensation.

The materials before this Court show that in each of these cases, the investigation has been perfunctory and the petitioners, who are victims of theft, have been left without remedy. They have endured years of uncertainty and distress. The pattern of neglect disclosed in the records reveals failure of the State to perform its constitutional duty of protection.

This court therefore holds that the petitioners are entitled to compensation and directs the State Home Department to pay monetary compensation equivalent to 30% of the value of the property reported stolen in each of these cases to the respective petitioners within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

This payment should be recoverable from the petitioners if the offender is subsequently identified and the property recovered.

The State Crime Records Bureau should review undetected cases every quarter to identify trends and issue advisories to field units.

The DGP should issue a circular reaffirming that filing an undetected report does not terminate the investigation and that such cases must be periodically reviewed.

The DGP (Training) should design refresher courses for investigating officers on evidence preservation, forensic procedures and victim communication.

Further, the State could also consider setting up a Special Investigation Team of experts in each district by picking and choosing eminent officers in order to investigate cases classified as “undetected” for more than five years.

It is open to the supervisory authorities to review the progress of the investigation, and, if circumstances warrant, to entrust the matter to a higher or specialised agency for proper and effective investigation.