HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER S.H.R.C. No.9064/2018/HC3 /The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant Thiru.T.Joseph Selvakumar, s/o Thirviyaraj, residing at Narayanasamy Kovil Street, Donavur, Nankuneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu shall recover Rs.50,000/- each from the Respondents as per the Rules; and
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
TAMIL NADU
143- P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028
Thursday, the 11th day of September, 2025
PRESENT
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER
S.H.R.C. No.9064/2018/HC3
Thiru.T.Joseph Selvakumar s/o Thiraviyaraj
Narayanasamy Kovil Street
Donavur
Nankuneri Taluk
Tirunelveli District … Complainant
-vs-
1. Thiru.Imanuel
The then Sub Inspector of Police
Erwadi Police Station
Tirunelveli District
2. Thiru.Muthukumar
The then Police Constable
Erwadi Police Station
Tirunelveli District … Respondents
ORDER
The Gist of the complaint of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant one Tr.Joseph Selvakumar, residing at Narayanasamy Koil Street, Donavur, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli district lodged a complaint with this commission. In his complaint, he states that he was an employee at Saudi Arabia and marriage arrangement was made for him. He came to his native village on 14.07.2018 and a painting work was conducted for his home due to his marriage.
2. The complainant alleged that on 01.08.2018, he went away from his village for marriage work. At that time, one Nelson who involved in painting work of the side wall, indulged in a quarrel with neighbour Tmt.Jeba Thai and on that melee, the said Nelson poured the paint on her. However, due to the previous enmity, the said Jeba Thai implicated the complainant’s name in her complaint. The Erwadi police called the complainant for an enquiry. He told them that due to the Betrothal by next day, he explained everything to the police and requested to extend time for enquiry. However, the respondent police registered a case in
Cr.No. 161/2018 against the complainant.
3. The complainant approached the Hon’ble High court for anticipatory bail and his petition was allowed. He got married on 20.08.2018. As per the Hon’ble High Court conditions, in his bail order, he surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate court at Nanguneri on 23.08.2018. After furnishing surety, he went to the respondent police station on 24.08.2018 to comply the conditional order. At that time, the respondent police abused the complainant and threatened him that “why he did not come for enquiry?” and “how dare to obtain anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble
High court?” and also threatened that the 1st respondent/Sub Inspector of Police Tr.Immanuel is searching for him and he will come and file another case against the complainant.
4. The complainant further alleged that the respondents threatened the complainant that the
complainant cannot go for any further foreign employment. The complainant replied to them that he did not do any
unlawful activity. Immediately, the 2nd respondent/Tr.Muthukumar slapped his left cheek by his right hand and told that “how dare to talk against police?”. Thinking about his future, the complainant kept quiet. But, the 2nd respondent/Tr.Muthukumar abused him with filthy language and obtained his signature in a note and sent him away.
5. The complainant further alleged that on 25.08.2018, when he went to appear before the police station for complying the conditional order, the respondents ridiculed about the marriage life of the complainant. When the complainant started recording such talk of the respondents, the 1st respondent/Tr.Immanuel abused him with the word “Bastard”, “How dare to record in the police station?” and snatched his cell phone on the table and both the respondents started attacking by Lathis and kicked him with their shoes and then they called his neighbour one Kannan and obtained another false complaint from Kannan’s wife and registered a case against him in Erwadi P.S Cr.No.170/2018 and lodged him in the prison.
6. The complainant further alleged that when he was taken to the Judicial Magistrate for remand, he was threatened by the respondent police not to reveal anything to the Magistrate. Later, he let off on bail on 29.08.2018.
On the same day, one neighbour Mr.Joseph met one Anbarasi and Kannan, who gave the complaint against the complainant to the police and asked them why they gave complaint against the complainant Tr.Joseph Selvakumar, though he got married only 5 days before. They replied that
they did not know anything and the 1st
respondent/Tr.Immanuel called them over Phone and on his direction only, they gave the complaint and they also stated that they are ready to withdraw the complaint.
7. The complainant further alleged that while the said Anbarasi and Kannan contacted the 1st respondent Tr.Immanuel to withdraw the complaint, he threatened them also. Thereafter, his friend Joseph sent various representations to Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli by phone and WhatsApp and an online complaint was also submitted to Superintendent of Police by the mother of the complainant. However, no action was taken by the police. A ceased cellphone of the complainant was returned only on 07.09.2018 but they obtained a letter as if they handed over the cellphone on 25.08.2018 and the respondents attempted to erase the CCTV Footage recorded on
25.08.2018 at Erwadi.
8. The complainant further alleged that because of such false imprisonment and assault, his reputation before the society and his wife’s family was lowered. Therefore, the complainant prayed this Commission for appropriate action against the respondents for the Human rights violation.
Common counter statement filed by the respondents is as follows:-
9. The respondents deny all the allegations leveled against them by the complainant. The respondents submitted that one Tmt.Jeba Thai lodged a complaint with the second respondent Tr.Muthukumar of the Erwadi police station on 02.08.2018 at about 8 PM. After receipt of the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.161/2018 for the offences u/s 294(b) IPC R/W S.4 of TNPHW Act. The complaint house is situated in the east side of the said Jeba Thai. The respondents stated that already there was a dispute relating to a common wall between their houses.
10. It is further stated that on 01.08.2018 afternoon about 1 PM, when the said Jeba Thai was in her house, one Nelson of Donavur painted the disputed wall. When it was questioned by the Jeba Thai, the said Nelson abused her with filthy language and poured the paint on her. At that time, the complainant Tr.Joseph Selvakumar abused the said Tmt.Jeba Thai with filthy language and at the time, the sons of Tmt.Jeba Thai came there and all were went away. Hence, she lodged a complaint with respondent police. The investigation officer was one Mr.Alwin, Sub Inspector of Police, Erwadi police station conducted investigation and found that the complaint was true.
11. The respondents deny the averment of the
complainant that the police called him for enquiry as false and they denied that they did not call the complainant
Tr.Joseph Selvakumar for enquiry. Subsequently, the complainant Tr.Joseph Sevakumar issued legal notice to the respondents, Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, District Collector, Tirunelveli District and to Mr.Charles, Inspector of Police, Erwadi Police Station. The fit reply was also issued by the respondents to the counselor of the complainant.
12. It is further submitted by the respondents that on 25.08.2018, another complaint was received against the complainant Tr.Joseph Selvakumar that he abused a woman by name Tmt.Anbarasi on 25.08.2018 at about 10 AM. She was abused by the Joseph Selvakumar with filthy language and on her complaint, he was arrested and remanded before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. During the remand, the complainant did not make any complaint against the police at the time of remand.
13. The respondents further submitted that they did their duty in accordance with law and in fact they did not assault or kick the complainant with shoes and no external injuries are found on the body of the complainant. On 25.08.2018, the entire personal articles of the complainant was handed over to the mother of the complainant and his brother-in-law. Hence the respondents prayed this Commission to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant against the respondents before this
Commission.
14. Points for consideration:-
(i) Whether the respondents had committed any human rights violation against the complainant?
and
(ii) What relief the victim family is entitled to?
Point No.(i):
15. This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that the respondents foisted false cases against the complainant and abused physically and mentally in an unlawful manner and thereby they had violated the human rights of the complainant.
16. Per contra, the respondents denied the entire allegations of the complainant leveled against them. The respondents stated that they acted in accordance with law and they had not committed any of the human rights of the complainant as alleged by the complainant in his
complaint.
17. The complainant Tr.T.Joseph Selvakumar, in order to prove his case, he himself was examined as PW1 and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint filed by him. He also examined one Tr.Koildoss, s/o Thiravyaraj as PW2 and he supported the case of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant, eleven documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.P1 to P11.
18. Likewise, on behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent Tr.Imanuel was examined as RW1 and he reiterated the averments contained in the counter statement filed by them. The 2nd respondent
Tr.Muthukumar was examined as RW2 and he also supported the case of the respondents. The respondents also examined one private witness by name Tmt.Anbarasi as RW3. She also supported the case of the respondents. On the side of the respondents, they had filed 4 documents and the same were marked as Ex.R1 to R4.
19. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the allegations of the complainant is true as alleged in his complaint and the respondents had violated the human rights of the complainant as alleged by him for the reasons stated in the complaint or not.
20. PW1 deposed the same averments made in his complaint. He filed 11 documents to prove his case and those were marked as Exhibit P1 to P11. During the course of cross examination, the respondents’ counsel mostly put a suggestion and those are denied by PW1. During the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that he was arrested by the respondents while he had complying the conditional order passed by the court in the police station in a bail order, ordered by the Hon’ble High Court. PW1 categorically deposed that he was arrested in the police station.
21. One Tr.Koil Das filed proof affidavit and examined as PW2. In his proof affidavit, corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW2 is the elder brother of PW1. He deposed that he saw the assault of the respondents on his brother at police station on 25.08.2018. PW2 prayed that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation and he seeks appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent police. During the cross examination, PW2 deny the suggestions put forth by the respondents’ counsel the his brother/PW1 was not assaulted by the respondents in the police station. PW2 in his cross examination, he admitted that the cell phone of his brother PW1 was returned to him but he denied the suggestion that the police did not erase the evidences in that cell phone. Though PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by the respondents in a lengthy manner, no useful information was gathered in favour of the respondents.
22. The first respondent, Tr.Immanuel, filed a proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit, he reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. The RW1 filed 4 documents and marked with Exhibit R1 to R4 but all the exhibits are marked with objection of the complainant’s side. Exhibit R1 is the alleged letter given by the PW1 to the RW1 during the cross examination, the complainant side deny the signature in exhibit R1. Exhibit R2 is the alleged letter given by one Jeba Thai. Exhibit R3 is the alleged letter of Alexander and those letters are denied by the complainant side. Exhibit R4 is also a photograph which are not filed along with mandatory certificate required u/s 65D of evidence act that exhibit R4 cannot be taken as exhibit in this case.
23. RW1 further deposed that the complainant stated falsehood in his proof affidavit that PW1 was assaulted by lathi and when he fell down, he was kicked by boots by the respondent as false. RW1 admitted that PW1 was arrested on 25.08.2018 by him in Cr.No.170 of 2018. He further deposed that during remand of PW1, his money purse, gold ring, the gold chain and a watch was handed over to his
Mother-in-law and it was duly acknowledged. However, a Lenova cell phone of PW1 was handed over to his brotherin-law Alexander on 25.08.2018. During the cross examination, RW1 replied that there was no provision for CCTV footages available in Erwadi police station on
25.08.2018.
24. During the course of cross examination, RW1 admitted that the 2 cases were registered against PW1 in the Erwadi police station after assuming charges as Sub Inspector of police in the police station of RW1. RW1 suggested that because of PW1 obtained anticipatory bail in Cr.No.161/2018, he grows vengeance against him. RW1 admitted that he was the investigation officer in Cr.No.170/2018. RW1 further admitted that after registering the case in Cr.No.170/2018 within 2 hours he arrested PW1. RW1 further admitted that he prepared the remand report (exhibit P6). However, in that exhibit in all the places the complainant’s name was typed as Kalaiyarasi instead of Anbarasi. RW1 during the cross examination admitted that the complainant Anbarasi in Cr.No.170/2018 is the daughter in law of the said Jeba Thai, who was a defacto complainant in Cr.No.161/2018.
25. The 2nd respondent Tr.Muthukumar, the then Police Constable attached to the Erwadi police station fled a proof affidavit and examined as RW2. He also reiterated the averments contained in their common counter as well as he corroborated the evidence of RW1. During the course of cross examination, RW2 replied that in the prayer for remand in Cr.No.170/2018, instead of the name of Anbarasi, the complainant’s name was typed as Kalaiyarasi. RW2 admitted that they did not file any amendment petition for that typing error. He further admitted that when PW1 came to comply the conditional order passed by the court, RW2 was in the police station on 24.08.2018. He further deposed that 25.08.018, when the complainant came for comply the conditional order in the police station, another case in Cr.No.170/2018 was registered against PW1.
26. I have perused Ex.P3 marriage invitation of the complainant. It is not in dispute that the marriage took place to PW1 is on 20.08.2018, Monday and the same was proved by Ex.P3. I have also perused the Ex.P6 in a careful manner. It is seen that the name of the defacto complainant shown as Kalayarasi. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents never took steps to change the name of the defacto complainant as Anbarasi. It is very fatal to the case of the respondents.
27. One Anbarasi w/o Kannan, residing in Donavur, Nanguneri taluk, filed a proof affidavit and examined as RW3. In her proof affidavit, she submits that she is residing with her husband and children. Her husband is doing Mason work. She is working as a nurse in Donavur fellowship on 01.08.2018. She deposed that a case was registered against the complainant Tr.Joseph Selvakumar that he poured the paint on her aunt Mrs.Jeba Thai. Because of that enmity on 28.08.2018, about 8:45 AM, when she goes for her nursing class, the Joseph
Selvakumar stared at her and when she questioned him, he abused her with filthy language. At that time, the husband of RW3 intervened and questioned PW1. But the Joseph Selvakumar abused him and threatened him also. After the assembling of the village people, PW1 gone away. Immediately she went to the police station and lodged the complaint. During the course of cross examination, RW3 admitted that she was not working on 28.08.2018. She replied that the contents of the proof affidavit was dictated by her.
28. I have perused the entire documents in a careful manner. Exhibit P1 is the FIR Copy in Cr.No.161/2018 on the file of the Erwadi Police station. Exhibit P2 is the anticipatory bail order copy of the PW1 granted by the Hon’ble High court of Madras. Exhibit P3 is the marriage invitation of PW1 dated 20.08.2018. Exhibit P4 is the complaint copy of K.Anbarasi. Exhibit P5 is the FIR Copy in Cr.No.170/2018 of Erwadi police station, which was registered on 25.08.2018. Exhibit P6 the prayer for remand to the PW1 in Cr.No.170/2018. Ex.P7 is the copy of the complaint addressed to the Chairperson, SHRC, Chennai.
Exhibit P8 is the legal notice addressed to the respondents and Mr.Charles Inspector of police Erwadi police station and 2 others by the PW1. Ex.P9 is the letter sent by the District Collector, Tirunelveli District to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District for appropriate action on the complaint of the complainant. Exhibit P10 is the reply notice of the respondents. Exhibit P11 is the legal notice issued by the PW1 to Mrs.K.Anbarasi.
29. The case of the complainant is that he was falsely implicated in a case in Cr.No.161/2018 on the file of the Erwadi police station. He was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble high court with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that he shall appear before the Investigation officer daily at 10:30 AM for a period of 2 weeks. Accordingly, he went to the police station for putting his signature in the police station on 24.08.2018. On that day he was threatened and abused by the second respondent Muthukumar.
30. On 25.08.2018, when he went to the police station for complaining the condition that also the 5th day of his marriage. He was questioned by the First respondent Immanuel questioned him that “How dare he obtained a bail before the High court?. Immediately the complainant started to record his threatening and abuse by phone, it was snatched, and he was slapped by second respondent and brutally attached by both the respondents by lathis and hand. Subsequently, they called one Anbarasi, who is none other than the daughter in law of Jeba Thai, the defacto complainant in Cr.No.161/2018 and obtained a false complaint from Anbarasi that he stared and abused her with the filthy language. Abusing her with the filthy language. Hence he was arrested and remanded under the
Judicial custody.
31. I have perused the documents in a careful manner. Exhibit P1, the FIR in Cr.No.161/2018 and the defacto complainant is one T. Jeba Thai of Donavur. The accused person in this case are A1 Nelson, A2 Selvakumar.
The contents of the complaint is that in a wordy quarrel, one Nelson A1 poured the paint on the defacto complainant and when he was questioned by her, the A2 Selvakumar abused her with filthy language. The exhibit P2 is the anticipatory bail order granted by Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. One of the conditions, mentioned in exhibit P2 is that the petitioner Selvakumar would appear in front of the respondent police station daily at 10:30 AM for a period of 2 weeks.
32. Exhibit P3 is the marriage invitation of PW1 Joseph Selvakumar and proved that the marriage was solemnized on 28.08.2018. It is admitted fact that the PW1 Selvakumar gone to Erwadi police station on 24.08.2018 and also the admitted fact that, he went to the police station again on 25.08.2018. The Exhibit P4 complaint of one Anbarasi of Donavur examined as RW3 in this case.
The said Anbarasi is the defacto complainant in Cr.No.170/2018 against the Selvakumar the PW1. In that complaint exhibit P4, Anbarasi submits that on 25.08.2018 about 8:45 AM when she goes for nursing training on the two wheeler of her husband, she was stared by PW1/Joseph Selvakumar. When it was questioned by her, the complainant abused her with filthy language. So, on that complaint, a FIR was registered in Cr.No.170/2018 against Joseph Selvakumar for the offences u/s 294 (b), 506(i) IPC R/W u/s 4 of the prohibition of harassment of
Women Act.
33. The FIR was registered within 10 hours on the same day by the second respondent/Muthukumar and according to the respondents, PW1 was arrested at 12:30 PM on the same day near a bus stop. The Exhibit P6 the prayer for remand seems that the complainant was one Kalaiyarasi instead of Anbarasi. In exhibit P4, the Anbarasi did not say anything about the previous occurrence of Cr.No.161/2018 that is the complaint of her mother-in-law
Jeba Thai did not speak anything in her complaint. However, when she was examined as RW3, she deposed that the occurrence took place on 28.08.2018 which is totally contradictory about her complaint and the FIR that is exhibit P4 and P5.
34. It is surprise to see that the respondents showing enormous swift action on the complaint of Anbarasi against PW1. The reply given by PW1 during cross examination, he categorically asserted that he was arrested in the police station when he was complying the conditional order. It is pertinent to be mentioned that the respondent police did not file any arrest memo, in Cr.No.170/2018 to prove the case of the complainant that he was not arrested in the police station. The case of the complainant that on 25.04.2018, when he was started to harass by the respondents and he recorded the same in his cellphone would be a trigger point. The complaint of Anbarasi and her proof affidavit and the prayer for remand would show the flaw of police in this case that PW1 was framed in a case when he started to record the abuse of respondents. The respondents never produced any CCTV footage to disprove that they did not harass the complainant while he was recording the incident in his cellphone. They simply denied that there is no CCTV provision in the police station, which is also fatal to the case on hand.
35. I have also perused the evidence of PW2 and the same is corroborated and inspired the confidence of this Commission. RW1 also admitted during the cross examination that the defacto complainant in Cr.No.170/2018 Mrs.Anbarasi is the daughter in law of
Jeba Thai, who lodged a previous complaint against the PW1. During the course of cross examination, RW2 admitted that the case in Cr.No.170/2018 was registered against PW1 when he came to the police station for complying conditions. RW3 filed a proof affidavit with inconsistent averments which is contradictory to the case of the respondents. Hence, the evidence of RW3 is liable to be rejected. Furthermore, the evidence of the respondents does inspire the confidence of this Commission and the same is liable to be rejected.
37. Considering the materials on record and
arguments of both the parties, it is categorically proved by the complainant that the Respondents tortured the Complainant and abused him physically and mentally as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and also in the evidence. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondents 1 & 2 had violated the human rights of the Complainant. This Point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
38. While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the Respondents 1 & 2 had violated the human rights of the Complainant. It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights from the Respondents of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation would be fair and
reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each from the Respondents and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 1st and 2nd Respondents. This Point is answered accordingly.
39. In the result, this Commission recommends as
follows:-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant Thiru.T.Joseph Selvakumar, s/o Thirviyaraj, residing at
Narayanasamy Kovil Street, Donavur,
Nankuneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu shall recover Rs.50,000/- each from the
Respondents as per the Rules; and
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
Respondents 1 & 2 as per the Rules.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant’s side witness:
PW1 : Tr.T.Joseph Selvakumar
PW2 : Tr.T.Koildoss
Respondents’ side witness:
RW1 : Tr.Immanuel
RW2 : Tr.Muthukumar
RW3 : Tmt.Anbarasi
Complainant’s side documents (Exhibits):
Ex.P1 : FIR Copy in Cr.No.161/2018 on the file of the Erwadi Police station registered against the complainant.
Ex.P2 : Anticipatory bail order copy of the PW1
granted by the Hon’ble High court of Madras, dt. 09.08.2018.
Ex.P3 : Marriage invitation of PW1 dated
20.08.2018.
Ex.P4 : The complaint copy of K.Anbarasi addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police,
Erwadi PS
Ex.P5 : FIR Copy in Cr.No.170/2018 of Erwadi police station registered against the complainant.
Ex.P6 : Prayer for remand to the PW1 in
Cr.No.170/2018.
Ex.P7 : Copy of the complaint addressed to the Chairperson, SHRC, Chennai.
Ex.P8 : The legal notice addressed to the respondents and Mr.Charles Inspector of police Erwadi police station and 2 others by the PW1.
Ex.P9 : Letter sent by the District Collector,
Tirunelveli District to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District for appropriate action on the complaint of the complainant.
Ex.P10 : Reply-legal notice of the respondents.
Ex.P11 : Legal notice issued by the PW1 to
Mrs.K.Anbarasi.
Respondents’ side documents (Exhibits)
Ex.R1 : Letter given by the complainant to the Sub
Inspector of Police, Erwadi PS, dt. 25.08.2018
Ex.R2 : Letter given by one Jeba Thai to the Sub
Inspector of Police, Erwadi PS
Ex.R3 : Letter given by one Alexandar to the Sub
Inspector of Police, Erwadi PS
Ex.R4 Photograph
To
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
Copy to:
1. Thiru.T.Joseph Selvakumar s/o Thiraviyaraj Narayanasamy Kovil Street
Donavur, Nankuneri Taluk
Tirunelveli District
2. Thiru.Imanuel
The then Sub Inspector of Police
Erwadi Police Station
Tirunelveli District
3. Thiru.Muthukumar
The then Police Constable
Erwadi Police Station
Tirunelveli District
Sd/-
MEMBER
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar
Sskr/11/09/2025
