“Allegations Were Not Substantiated by Concrete Evidence”: Madras High Court Sets Aside SHRC Order Directing Compensation and Disciplinary Action Against Police Officer
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice M. Sundar and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the State Human Rights Commission’s (SHRC) order recommending payment of compensation and initiation of disciplinary action against a police officer was unsustainable. The Court found that the complainant had not provided adequate evidence to establish a human rights violation by the officer. Consequently, the Court set aside the SHRC’s order dated 14.05.2018 and allowed the writ petition challenging the same. The Court ruled that the recommendations made by the SHRC could not be sustained in the absence of corroborative material.
The dispute originated from a complaint filed before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, by an individual alleging that his human rights were violated by a police official during a preliminary enquiry into a domestic dispute. The complainant, who had been summoned in connection with a complaint lodged by his wife, claimed that he and his family members were mistreated during their appearance before the officer.
The petitioner in the writ proceedings was serving as an Inspector of Police at the All Women Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai, at the time of the incident. On 26.08.2013, the wife of the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging harassment and threats from her husband and his family. The complaint was registered as C.S.R. No. 264/2013. Based on a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner issued summons to the complainant and his family to appear on 30.09.2013.
After the inquiry, the officer registered an FIR in Crime No. 8 of 2013 under Sections 498A and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged against the second respondent and his family members. Subsequently, on the same day, the second respondent filed a complaint before the SHRC alleging that he was subjected to human rights violations during the enquiry process.
The second respondent claimed that:
- He and his family members were not allowed to sit during the enquiry, despite his medical condition.
- The officer used abusive language against him.
- He was repeatedly summoned without proper enquiry being conducted for an extended period.
In response, the petitioner denied the allegations and asserted that she had conducted the enquiry in a lawful and respectful manner. She stated that the complainant and his family members had attempted to pressurize her to close the case. The petitioner maintained that a prima facie case was made out from the wife’s complaint, which led to the registration of the FIR.
The petitioner also pointed out that the criminal case registered against the complainant had been taken on file in C.C. No. 167 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. She contended that the SHRC had failed to consider these facts and passed an order based solely on unsubstantiated claims.
During the enquiry by the SHRC:
- The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and produced 14 documents.
- The petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and submitted 5 documents.
Despite the allegations, no other witnesses, including the complainant’s family members who were allegedly present during the incident, were examined to support the claim. The complainant also did not lodge any complaint with superior police authorities.
The SHRC concluded its enquiry and passed an order directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a compensation of ₹2,00,000 to the complainant and recover the same from the petitioner. It also recommended initiating disciplinary proceedings against the officer.
The petitioner challenged this order through the present writ petition, asserting that it was arbitrary and unsupported by facts or legal grounds.
The Court examined the materials on record and noted that the SHRC’s recommendations were based on uncorroborated statements. The Bench stated, “Though in the said complaint it is mentioned that the family members of the complainant accompanied him to the police station, none were examined to corroborate the statement given by the complainant.”
The Court recorded, “No complaint was preferred by him to the superior police officer against the writ petitioner for the alleged act.”
Further, the judgment noted, “In the cross examination, the complainant has stated that since his wife assaulted him in the police station, he suffered pain on his right leg.” The Court highlighted this inconsistency in the complainant’s version and the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to any direct physical harm.
On the question of conduct during the enquiry, the Court stated, “The petitioner during her examination has clearly stated that she offered a chair to the second respondent at the time of enquiry. This fact was not rebutted during her cross examination.”
The Court also dealt with the issue of delay in filing the final report and clarified the legal position. It recorded, “The fact that the writ petitioner conducted enquiry for 8 months and did not file the final report will not amount to violation of Human Rights.”
Referring to the precedent in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors, the Court observed, “The Supreme Court has held that with regard to family disputes, the Police Officers have to conduct preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR.” Hence, the Bench stated, “The act of the petitioner conducting enquiry before registering the FIR cannot be said to be in violation of human rights of the second respondent.”
The Court concluded that the findings of the SHRC lacked evidentiary support. It stated, “Since the second respondent failed to establish that the writ petitioner subjected him to harassment thereby violating his human rights, the recommendations made by the SHRC cannot be sustained.”
The Division Bench issued the following order: “Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the SHRC/1st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.”
The Court added: “There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Arumugavel, Advocate
For the Respondents: M/s. S. Gajalakshmi, Mr. K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Case Title: D. Selvakumari v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and Another
Case Number: W.P. No. 17369 of 2018
Bench: Justice M. Sundar, Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
[Read/Download order]
