Court halts Kerala policemen’s deal to drop charges after handcuffed body found in TN well

6 min readNew 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 mandatory inter-state policing procedures.

Allegations go beyond

According to investigators, the officers apprehended the deceased, restrained him with handcuffs and kept him in illegal custody. While in their custody, he allegedly attempted to escape and fell into the well, resulting in his death.

However, the prosecution’s case does not stop with the fall. It alleges that the officers abandoned the victim after the incident, failed to promptly inform local Tamil Nadu Police authorities, vacated their accommodation and returned to Kerala.

The CB-CID further claimed that the officers neither obtained proper authorisation nor informed the jurisdictional police station before conducting the operation within Tamil Nadu. Mandatory safeguards governing inter-state police operations were also allegedly ignored.

Kerala Police personnel deny wrongdoing

The petitioners argued that they were carrying out a legitimate anti-drug operation aimed at apprehending members of an interstate narcotics syndicate.

Story continues below this ad

They maintained that there was no custodial assault and that the deceased accidentally fell into the well while trying to flee.

The officers also contended that they had informed superior officers before proceeding to Tamil Nadu and relied on general diary entries, e-mail communications and departmental records to support their claim that the operation had official approval.

A major plank of their defence was that the deceased’s wife and family members had voluntarily entered into a compromise and accepted compensation, making further prosecution unnecessary.

The officers also argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would seriously affect their service careers despite the victim’s family having resolved the dispute.

Story continues below this ad

Court rejects compromise plea

The high court, however, found that the issues raised in the case could not be settled through a private agreement.

Justice Gowri observed that the allegations arose in the backdrop of a custodial death and involved serving police officers exercising state authority.

Such cases, the court said, transcend the realm of a personal dispute.

The court noted that serious questions remained regarding the legality of the inter-state operation, the existence of proper authorisation, compliance with procedural safeguards, the legality of handcuffing and the officers’ conduct after the incident.

These, the court held, were disputed questions of fact that could only be resolved through examination of evidence during trial.

Trial to continue

Holding that the case involved significant public interest and questions relating to police accountability, the high court refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the prosecution.

Dismissing the petition, the court directed the Judicial Magistrate-I, Dindigul, to proceed with the trial expeditiously and decide the case in accordance with law.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

Kerala Police

Madras High Court

NDPS case