✦ High Court of India · 03 Jul 2018

High Court · 2018

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Jul 2018

Court

High Court of India

Decided

03 Jul 2018

Bench

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Length

1,259 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §41 and 41 Code of Criminal Procedure Constitution of India Indian Penal Code §448 and 506

W.P.No.14734 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SUNDARANDTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDARW.P.No.14734 of 2020ANDW.M.P.No.18311 of 2020V.Adhimoolam .. PetitionerVs.1.The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentSecretariat, George FortChennai 600 0092.The SecretaryState Human Rights CommissionThiruvarangamNo.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja SalaiGreenways Road, Chennai 600 0283.N.Karthick .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the recommendation dated 03.07.2018 in SHRC.No.193 of 2014 ordered by the second respondent, quash the same.1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020For petitioner: Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.A.G.RajanFor 1st respondent: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government PleaderFor 2nd respondent: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Standing CounselFor 3rd respondent: No appearanceO R D E R(made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)The order dated 03 July 2018 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “SHRC” for the sake of brevity, convenience, and clarity) in SHRC No.193 of 2014 is under challenge in the captioned main writ petition (hereinafter referred to as “WP” for brevity). By the said order, the SHRC directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant as compensation, recover the said amount from the petitioner/first respondent therein, and also recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner/first respondent therein.2. For clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the SHRC.2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020Factual Background3. The complainant filed a petition before the SHRC stating that one Lakshmiyammal had requested his parents to maintain her property. Thereafter, the complainant’s parents constructed a small house on the said property and had been living there for the past 23 years along with his sisters, Mala and Devi, and his uncle Rajini.4. According to the complainant, in October 2013, Lakshmiyammal, the owner of the property, visited them along with some hooligans and threatened them to vacate. Consequently, the complainant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint before the 1st respondent police. However, the Inspector of Police advised that, as the dispute was civil in nature, they should approach the civil court for appropriate relief.5. The complainant’s family then filed O.S. No.234 of 2013 before the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, which is still pending, and issued notice to Lakshmiyammal. In the meantime, Lakshmiyammal lodged a criminal complaint against the complainant’s family at Mangadu Police Station in November 2013. The complainant undertook to appear before the police on 18.11.2013 and left the station. However, on 17.11.2013, at about 4.30 a.m., all 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020the respondents allegedly trespassed into the complainant’s house, assaulted the complainant, his maternal uncle, his father, and his sisters, dragged them into a police van, and took them to the police station. They were allegedly kept in the lock-up, the complainant was handcuffed, denied water and food, prevented from attending to nature’s calls, and tortured. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody.6. The present writ petitioner, who was the first respondent before the SHRC, denied all allegations in the complaint. He stated that one Rajesh Gopal had lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police, registered as C.S.R. No.1499/2013. According to Rajesh Gopal, in 1993, his mother, Komala Gopal, had purchased house plots 4 and 5 in Gurusamy Nagar Extension, measuring 3,632 sq. ft., and had constructed a house there. On 13.11.2013, when Rajesh Gopal visited his property, he allegedly found that a small house had been constructed there and was being illegally occupied by one Natarajan and his family.7. Acting on Rajesh Gopal’s complaint, the first respondent registered FIR No.2156/2013 against Natarajan and his family members for offences 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020punishable under Sections 448 and 506(i) IPC. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. According to the petitioner, the arrest was carried out in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.8. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. The respondents, however, did not adduce any evidence to prove their defence.9. Upon evaluating the material on record, the SHRC held that the first respondent had violated the human rights of the complainant and passed the impugned order.10. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that in the absence of substantial evidence to prove violation of human rights by the petitioner, the impugned order is unsustainable. He further submitted that the complainant’s arrest was effected by the Sub-Inspector of Police and not by the petitioner. Therefore, the SHRC’s finding that the arrest violated Supreme Court guidelines is erroneous and liable to be set aside.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 202011. The complainant/third respondent in the WP, though served with notice and named in the cause list, has not chosen to appear in person or through counsel.12. Mr. R. Prathap Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the SHRC, submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that the petitioner had violated the complainant’s human rights. He argued that the SHRC had properly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned order, which calls for no interference.13. Mr. P. Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State, adopted the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the SHRC.14. The offences alleged against the complainant are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, before effecting arrest, police officers were required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the arrest was made without complying with these provisions or the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 202015. The arrest card of the complainant shows that the arrest was effected by the Sub-Inspector of Police. However, the arrest report was not produced before the SHRC. In these circumstances, the SHRC’s finding that the arrest violated the Cr.P.C. provisions and the Supreme Court guidelines cannot be faulted.16. Further, the petitioner did not enter the witness box to rebut the allegation that the complainant was subjected to torture and harassment while in police custody. Consequently, the complainant’s testimony remains uncontroverted. Based on this evidence, the SHRC rightly concluded that the petitioner had violated the complainant’s human rights.17. However, with regard to the SHRC’s recommendation to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, this Court notes that there is no record of any prior violation of human rights by the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as a police officer. Accordingly, the said recommendation warrants interference.18. In light of the above discussion, this Court passes the following order:(i). The writ petition is allowed in part.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020(ii). The impugned order, insofar as it directs the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant, is confirmed. The Government’s right to recover the said sum from the petitioner/first respondent before the SHRC is also confirmed.(iii).The recommendation to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner/first respondent before the SHRC, recorded in clause (iii) of paragraph 37 of the impugned order, is set aside.(iv). It is made clear the order passed by SHRC, and this instant order shall not impact the service conditions of the Petitioner herein. (v). The connected WMP is closed. There shall be no order as to costs(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 12.08.2025Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/NogyaTo1.The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentSecretariat, George FortChennai 600 0092.The SecretaryState Human Rights Commission8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020ThiruvarangamNo.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja SalaiGreenways Road, Chennai 600 0289 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14734 of 2020M.SUNDAR, J.ANDHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.gyaW.P.No.14734 of 202012.08.202510

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure