Loading dispatches...
← Return to Newsroomgeneral
Court halts Kerala policemen’s deal to drop charges after handcuffed body found in TN well
Breaking
Cornell president says university 'must do better' after frat house rape allegations
New DelhiJun 4, 2026 05:26 PM IST Criminal justice cannot be reduced to a negotiable settlement mechanism in cases involving allegations against public servants exercising coercive state power, the court held. (AI-generated image)The Madras High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against seven Kerala Police personnel accused of illegally detaining a man during a cross-border anti-drug operation in Tamil Nadu, whose handcuffed body was later found in a well, holding that allegations involving custodial misconduct and abuse of official power cannot be wiped away through a settlement with the family. Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a petition filed by members of Kerala Police’s Narcotic Special Squad seeking to quash a chargesheet pending before a trial court while facing prosecution over the 2017 death of one Mokkaiyan.“Rule of law demands that police personnel combating crime must themselves remain within the discipline of law. A constitutional democracy cannot tolerate lawlessness either from criminals or from those entrusted to enforce law,” the court said on June 1. Justice L Victoria Gowri said the police assume constitutional responsibility for the life, dignity, and safety of a person in their custody.Custodial offences stand on distinct footing Criminal justice cannot be reduced to a negotiable settlement mechanism in cases involving allegations against public servants exercising coercive state power. A person taken into police custody is under the complete control of the state machinery. The police officer assumes constitutional responsibility for the life, dignity, and safety of such a person. Custodial offences stand on a distinct footing. Any allegation concerning illegal custody, wrongful restraint, procedural abuse, or failure to account for custodial safety transcends the realm of a purely personal dispute. The argument of the petitioners that the deceased was a narcotic offender or an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot dilute the constitutional obligation imposed upon police officials. Equally, the plea that the petitioners were engaged in anti-drug operations cannot justify deviation from mandatory safeguards prescribed under law. This court is conscious of the practical difficulties faced by police personnel during anti-narcotic operations. However, operational difficulties cannot become a licence to bypass procedural discipline. The contention that the deceased accidentally fell into the well may ultimately constitute a valid defence during trial. However, the existence or otherwise of criminal liability can only be determined after evidence is adduced. The compromise entered into between the parties also cannot by itself eclipse the institutional interest involved in ensuring police accountability. Body found in well with handcuffs The case traces its origins to August 27, 2017, when Mokkaiyan’s body was found inside a well situated on the property of his brother-in-law in Dindigul. According to the prosecution, the body was discovered with handcuffs, leading the police to initially register a case relating to a custodial death. The investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) and re-registered in 2018. After completing the probe, the agency filed a chargesheet against the Kerala Police personnel for offences under sections 166A(a) (public servant disobeying law regarding investigation), 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury), 202 (intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person legally bound to inform), 330 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information) and 348 (wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the officers had entered Tamil Nadu in connection with a narcotics investigation but failed to follow man
New DelhiUpdated: Jun 4, 2026 10:16 AM IST The father argued that the child had made complaints against the mother during an interaction and the circumstances warranted a change in the custody arrangement. (AI-generated image)A father cannot take the law into his own hands and disregard a court-ordered custody arrangement, the Kerala High Court has held while directing that a minor boy be returned to his mother after finding that the father had retained the child in violation of a family court decree. Emphasising that a child’s welfare must remain the foremost consideration, the court observed that child cannot be treated as a “pawn” in parental disputes and that any grievance over custody arrangements must be addressed through legal remedies rather than unilateral action.A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim, who sought the return of her minor son after alleging that the child’s father had taken him away from school and continued to keep him despite a family court decree granting her permanent custody. Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M referred to comprehensive child custody guidelines approved by the Calcutta High Court in September 2025. (AI-enhanced image)“It is unfortunate that the child is being treated like a pawn in the hands of the parents. The parents are not expected to behave irresponsibly. In our view, the child should now be returned to the mother, who shall continue to be the guardian of the child unless and until the order of the Family Court is modified,” the court said on June 1, directing that custody of the child be restored to the mother. Mother moved HC after child taken away The case stemmed from a custody arrangement formalised through a compromise decree passed by the family court, Attingal, on June 24, 2025, under which permanent custody of the child was granted to the mother. According to the petition, the father subsequently removed the child from school without informing the mother and continued to retain custody despite the subsisting decree. Claiming that her son was being unlawfully kept away from her, the mother approached the high court through a habeas corpus petition seeking his immediate return. ‘Boy expressed desire to stay with mother’ During the hearing, the judges independently interacted with the child as well as both parents. The court recorded that the child ultimately expressed a clear desire to stay with his mother. Although he initially stated that he wished to go with his father, the bench noted that the statement did not appear to have been made entirely of his own free will. The judges further observed that there could be no doubt that the father had taken custody of the child in violation of the family court decree. ‘Father should have approached court’ The father argued that the child had made complaints against the mother during an interaction at school and that circumstances warranted a change in the custody arrangement. Rejecting the justification, the high court said that even if such concerns existed, the father was required to seek modification of the decree before the family court. The bench observed that while circumstances may arise requiring a custody order to be revisited, no parent can bypass legal procedures and unilaterally assume custody in defiance of a court order. The court remarked that the father ought to have filed an application for modification of the compromise decree rather than taking the law into his own hands. Failed to return boy During the proceedings, the father’s counsel referred to execution proceedings pending before the family court and an order dated April 24, under which the child was apparently allowed to stay with him for a few days before being returned to the mother. The high court noted that more than a month had passed since that order, but the child had not been returned. Observing that the habeas corpu
Discussion (0)