Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police seeking to quash an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu, which had directed her to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation for assaulting a woman in custody. The court noted the officer's failure to file a counter affidavit before the Commission despite repeated opportunities, treating the uncontroverted allegations as a tacit admission, and declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. The complaint before the Commission was lodged by the second respondent alleging abuse of power and brutal assault by the petitioner, who was then serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Guduvancherry Police Station, Kanchipuram District. The complaint alleged violation of human rights and was taken on file as S.H.R.C. No.11153/2018.

Also Read: S.469 CrPC | Limitation Period Commences From Date Identity Of Accused Becomes Known To Competent Authority, Not From Date Of Initial Complaint: Supreme Court

Notice was issued to the petitioner, who entered appearance through counsel but did not file a counter despite several opportunities. The Commission required proof affidavits. The complainant filed her proof affidavit and marked Exs.P1 to P7, including medical records and photographs. The petitioner did not adduce oral or documentary evidence.

The Commission examined Ex.P5, a letter issued by the Medical Officer of the Prison Hospital dated 21.12.2018, and Ex.P6 photographs showing injuries. Concluding that the allegations stood established, the Commission awarded ₹5,00,000/- compensation and recommended disciplinary action. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench recorded that the petitioner had failed to contest the complaint before the Commission despite multiple opportunities. The Court observed that the allegations before the Commission remained uncontroverted.

The judgment records the Commission’s findings as follows “Further, all the allegations of the complainant are supported by medical evidence and photographs, which substantiates the authenticity of the complaint. The duty of the Respondent as a police official is only to arrest a person, if he/she is accused of any offence and proceed according to law. There is no need for a person to be assaulted by the police.”

It was further noted “It should be kept in mind, here that women Police personnel were appointed in the disciplined force, only to make it friendly and easily approachable by the general public especially by women, but the happenings reported here are against the very purpose of creation of such a police force.”

The Commission had also recorded “The above analysis would lead this Commission, to accept the version of the complainant undoubtedly and wholly that the complainant was assaulted by hands and lathi at the police station by the Respondent, apart from snatching her valuables and cash, acting hastily on a complaint, which was not even investigated, and without giving an opportunity for the accused recourse to legal aide, sending her to prison.”

The High Court, while considering the challenge, stated “Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the Respondent No.2 herein agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs.3,50,000/- during the course of her examination and thereby contending that the complaint is intended only to extract money from the petitioner, we are unable to agree with the said contention for the simple reason that the serious allegation of assault and abuse of power levelled against the petitioner herein in the complaint made before the respondent commission remained uncontroverted, thereby suggesting tacit admission on the part of the petitioner herein.”

The Court further observed “Having failed to file counter before the respondent commission, inspite of service of notice and affording number of opportunities, it is not open for the petitioner herein to find fault with the conclusions arrived at by the respondent commission.”

On the scope of interference, the Bench stated “By noticing the conduct of the petitioner herein in the light of serious allegations made against her, coupled with the arrogance of the petitioner herein in not filing counter before the respondent commission, and her failure to produce the relevant records despite direction by the respondent commission, in our considered view, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence of this court, especially while exercising its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Third-Party Organ Donors Cannot Be Viewed With Suspicion, Authorisation Committee Must Only Determine Commercial Interest: Madras High Court

The Court held: “Thus, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this court can be allowed to be invoked. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. P. Keerthana for M/s. Murali Law Firm

For the Respondents: Mr. J. Baranidharan for R1; No appearance for R2

Case Title: Mrs. Magitha Anna Christy v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Another
Case Number: W.P.No.14267 of 2021
Bench: Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar