PRESENT : HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER.

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’ No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.

Monday, the 8th day of September of 2025

SHRC Case No.8391 of 2019

PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER.

Thiru V.K.Gurusamy … Complainant

-Vs-

(1) Thiru C.Udhayakumar, then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.
(2) Thiru A.Nagarajan, then Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City.
(3) Thiru M.Manikandan, then Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, Madurai City.
… Respondents

ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is residing at No.19A, NMR Road, Kamarajapuram, Madurai. He belongs to a leading political party and held various positions in the party and he served as a Councilor of Madurai Corporation as well as Chairman in a Co-operative Society. After the year 2011, the police foisted false cases against him and his family members and detained him under Goondas Act in Palayamkottai prison on the instigation of one former Minister belongs to other political party. The Complainant had arranged ear boring ceremony for his grand-daughter. But the 1st Respondent threatened the owners of Kalyana Mandapams with the bad intention not to celebrate the function by the Complainant. However, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court and got order and conducted the function and on that day a false case was foisted against him. Thereafter, the 1st & 2nd Respondents entered into his house and took the gift money of Rs.50,00,000/- when he was in the prison but they accounted only Rs.18,86,000/- and they had threatened the women members in the house if they lodged any complaint relating to the recovery of amount, they will foisted false case against them. Subsequently, the Respondents No.1 to 3 had foisted false cases against him and his family members including women members and the Complainant was in the prison for
215 days. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for appropriate action against the Respondents and compensation because of such foisting false cases against him and his family members and threatening his family members by the
Respondents.

2. After receipt of this complaint this Commission directed the Investigation Wing of this Commission to enquire the matter and to file a report. Accordingly, a detailed report was submitted by the Investigation Wing of this Commission. In this report it is stated that the Complainant and his son are the history-sheeters and there are 12 cases are pending against the
Complainant and 16 cases are pending against the son of the Complainant.
Relating to the allegation of taking Rs.18,86,000/- from the house of the Complainant is concerned it was recovered and handed over the same to the Court. The Police did not file any false case against the Complainant and his family members. During the enquiry of the Investigation Wing of this Commission, the Complainant gave statement and in his statement he has stated that though his son-in-law Thiru Pandian, Advocate, gave a complaint to the Respondents police on 10.07.2018 seeking police protection because of life threat by his enemies, they did not take any action and his son-in-law was murdered. Hence he prayed for appropriate action against the Respondents in this regard also.
3. After considering the report of the Investigation Wing of this Commission, this Commission issued summons to both the parties to appear before this Commission for enquiry. Both the parties appeared before this Commission and the Respondents filed the separate counter statements.
4. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the counter statements filed by them is as follows:-
The 1st Respondent in his counter statement denied all those averments made in the complaint. The 1st Respondent claimed that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation U/s 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 since in his complaint he has stated that the case was registered in Cr.No.415/2018 against the Complainant on 10.06.2018 and another two FIRs were registered on 03.08.2018. However, the Complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 21.08.2019 beyond the prescribed time limit of one year under Section 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The complaint is also liable to be rejected on the ground that no violation of human rights as defined under Section 2(d) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has been alleged or made out in the complaint dated
21.08.2019. The complaint is liable to be rejected on factual grounds also. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that because of registering false cases against him in Theppakulam and Keeraithurai police stations, the police had violated his human rights. But while the 1st Respondent was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, only B-3 Theppakulam, B-1 Vilakkuthoon,
B-2 Meenakshi Amman Temple, B-5 South Gate and B-6 Jaihindpuram Police Stations were under his jurisdiction and B-4 Keeraithurai Police Station was out of his jurisdiction. The Complainant and his son are notorious criminals and there was enmity between the Complainant and one Thiru Rajapandi and during the local body elections it was developed into a gang war between them in which 16 murders have taken place on both the sides. Several criminal cases including murders, attempt to murder, Explosive Act and Arms Act are pending against the Complainant, his son, his brother and other relatives and the details of the cases were mentioned in the counter statement. As per the search warrant issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, the 1st Respondent conducted search at the house of the Complainant on 21.11.2018 in the presence of VAO Thiru Suruliandavar, Village Assistant Thiru Velmurugan, police officials and other independent witnesses. During the search a sum of Rs.18,86,000/- was seized from the house of the Complainant and the same was handed over to the custody of the Court. But the allegation of the Complainant that more than Rs.50,00,000/- was available in his house during the search is false. Subsequently, another complaint was received from one Thiru Kanagaraj S/o Vairamani and a case was also registered against the Complainant in Cr.No.999/2018 on 04.11.2018 and the 2nd Respondent took up the investigation. The allegations made in the complaint are nothing but an attempt to threaten the investigation officer and to escape from the clutches of law for which he is trying to use this Commission as a tool. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no human rights violation committed by him against the Complainant.
The 2nd Respondent denied all those allegations leveled against him in the complaint. He submits that he arrested the Complainant on 03.08.2018 in a case involved in Arms Act and produced him before the Court and the case is pending before the Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in SC No.225/2023. He also denied the allegation that he threatened the family members of the Complainant that he would foist false cases against them if they reveal the alleged recovery of Rs.50,00,000/- from their house. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The 3rd Respondent filed the similar counter statement of the 1st Respondent and he has stated the same averments in his counter statement. He has also stated that already charge sheet has been laid in the case in Cr.No.415/2018, B-4 Keeraithurai Police Station and the same has been taken on file as SC No.175 of 2023 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and the same is pending trail and therefore this Commission may not entertain the complaint without the approval of the trial court as contemplated under Section 12(b) of The Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The points for consideration before this Commission are as follows:
(1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation U/s 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?
(2) Whether the Respondents had violated the human rights of the
Complainant?

(3) What reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6. Point No.1 :- This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that the police foisted false cases against him and his family members and detained him under Goondas Act in Palayamkottai prison on the instigation of one former Minister belongs to other political party. The Complainant had arranged ear boring ceremony for his grand-daughter. But the 1st Respondent threatened the owners of Kalyana Mandapams with the bad intention not to celebrate the function by the Complainant. However, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court and got order and conducted the function and on that day a false case was foisted against him. Thereafter, the 1st & 2nd Respondents entered into his house and took the gift money of Rs.50,00,000/- when he was in the prison but they accounted only Rs.18,86,000/- and they had threatened the women in the house if they lodged any complaint relating to the recovery of amount, they will foisted false case against them. Subsequently, the Respondents No.1 to 3 had foisted false cases against him and his family members including women members and the Complainant was in the prison for 215 days. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for appropriate action and compensation because of such foisting false cases against him and his family members and threatening his family members by the Respondents.
7. But the Respondents denied all those allegations leveled against them and they had filed their separate counter statements in a detailed manner. The 1st Respondent claimed that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation U/s 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 since in his complaint he has stated that the case was registered in Cr.No.415/2018 against the Complainant on 10.06.2018 and another two FIRs were registered on 03.08.2018. However, the Complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 21.08.2019 beyond the prescribed time limit of one year under Section 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The Complainant and his son are notorious criminals and there was enmity between the Complainant and one Thiru Rajapandi and during the local body elections it was developed into a gang war between them in which 16 murders have taken place on both sides. Several criminal cases including murders, attempt to murder, Explosive Act and Arms Act are pending against the Complainant, his son, his brother and other relatives and the details of the cases were mentioned in the counter statement. As per the search warrant issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, the 1st Respondent conducted search at the house of the Complainant on 21.11.2018 in the presence of VAO Thiru Suruliandavar, Village Assistant Thiru Velmurugan, police officials and other independent witnesses. During the search a sum of Rs.18,86,000/- was seized from the house of the Complainant and the same was handed over to the custody of the Court. But the allegation of the Complainant that more than Rs.50,00,000/- was available in his house during the search is false. The allegations made in the complaint are nothing but an attempt to threaten the investigation officer and to escape from the clutches of law for which he is trying to use this Commission as a tool. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no human rights violation committed by him against the Complainant.
The 2nd Respondent denied all those allegations leveled against him in the complaint. He submits that he arrested the Complainant on 03.08.2018 in a case involved in Arms Act and produced him before the Court and the case is pending before the Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in SC No.225/2023. He also denied the allegation that he threatened the family members of the Complainant that he would foist false cases against them if they reveal the alleged recovery of Rs.50,00,000/- from their house. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The 3rd Respondent also filed the similar counter statement of the 1st Respondent and he has stated the same averments in his counter statement. He has also stated that already charge sheet has been laid in the case in Cr.No.415/2018 of B-4 Keeraithurai Police Station and the same has been taken on file as SC No.175 of 2023 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and the same is pending trail and therefore this Commission may not entertain the complaint without the approval of the trial court as contemplated under Section 12(b) of The Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8. In order to prove his case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and also reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. The Complainant also filed 17 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 & P17.

9. Per contra, the Respondents No.1, 3 & 2 examined themselves as RW1 to RW3 respectively and they had also filed proof affidavits and reiterated the averments contained in their counter statements. They had also filed 20 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R20.

10. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the
Complainant has proved the allegations stated in the complaint against the Respondents which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant or not.

11. Before enter into the discussions of the complaint allegations, this Commission has the duty bound to decide whether this complaint is barred by limitation U/s 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 or not.
Section 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is as follows:-

“36. Matters not subject to Jurisdiction of the Commission
(1) . . . . . . . .
(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.”
In the complaint, the Complainant categorically stated that there was a search was conducted in his house by the 1st & 2nd Respondents and they had threatened the women members of his family on that day while the recovery of money from his house as if they would foist a false case against them if they reveal the alleged recovery of Rs.50 Lakhs from the house of the Complainant and try to lodge a complaint against them in this aspect. Though the Complainant was not mentioned the date of search, the 1st Respondent categorically mentioned in his counter statement that the search was conducted in the house of the Complainant on 21.11.2018.

12. The main allegation of the Complainant is that his family women members were threatened by the 1st & 2nd Respondents on that day with dire consequences and also threatened to put them in jail if they reveal about the recovery of money to anyone. The Complainant has missed to mention the date of occurrence in his complaint, but the 1st Respondent had categorically mentioned that the date of occurrence was on 21.11.2018. The other allegations of the Complainant regarding the registration of cases against him and his family members may not be taken into consideration by this Commission because it is for the criminal court to decide whether the cases registered against the Complainant and his family members by the Respondents police are true or false and the same could not be decided by this Commission. However, this Commission has jurisdiction to decide regarding with the allegation of the Complainant that the 1st & 2nd Respondents threatened the female family members of the Complainant at the time of conducting search on 21.11.2018 in the house of the Complainant which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant. So the 1st Respondent had mentioned the date of occurrence was on 21.11.2018 and this Complaint likely filed within one year i.e. 21.08.2019. So, the limitation prescribed in Section U/s 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not applicable in this case. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Secondly, during the enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing of this Commission, the Complainant gave a statement alleging that his son-in-law Thiru Pandian, who was the Advocate, lodged a complaint to the Respondents police about his life threat by the opposite party and seeking police protection. But no action was taken on his complaint because of such inaction by the
Respondents police, his son-in-law was murdered on 18.04.2019. So, in that aspect also the Complainant clearly mentioned in the statement given before the Investigation Wing of this Commission as well in his proof affidavit filed before this Commission during the enquiry. So, in this case the above two main allegations alone taken into consideration by this Commission and the other complaint allegations that the Respondents foisted false cases against the Complainant and his family members and they were arrested and detained in the prison are all to be dealt by the competent court and the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Commission.
14. Point No.2: – The Complainant filed the proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and he filed 17 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the most of the averments made in his complaint and also submits that his son-in-law Thiru M.S.Pandian, Advocate, lodged a complaint with the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police seeking police protection to him because of life threatening by the opposite party. But the 3rd Respondent Thiru Manikandan, Inspector of Police, submit a reply to the higher officials suppressing the real facts and the police protection has not given by him to his son-in-law. Because of his in-action on the complaint filed by his son-in-law, during the Parliament election on 18.04.2019 his son-in-law was murdered in a polling booth though he lodged a complaint he was not protected by the 3rd Respondent and the lethargic attitude of the 3rd Respondent his son-in-law was murdered and he prayed for appropriate action against him.
15. Among the 17 documents marked by PW1, Ex.P9 is the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1972 of 2020 in which it was ordered that the FIR in Cr.No.717/2018 registered against the Complainant was quashed. Ex.P10 is the search list and in which it was stated that the search was conducted on 21.11.2018 and a sum of Rs.18,86,000/- was recovered by the police from the house of the Complainant and signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town (L&O) Range, Madurai city. Ex.P11 is the order of 6th Additional Sessions Court, Madurai in Criminal Review Petition No.26/2019 directing to return the money recovered on 04.11.2018 from the house of the Complainant to Tmt.Indira, the daughter-in-law of the Complainant. Ex.P12 is the complaint dated 10.07.2018 sent by Thiru M.S.Pandian, the son-in-law of the Complainant, to the Home Secretary sought protection to his life and the life of his family members and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District for necessary action. Ex.P13 is the reply to the RTI application filed by one Thiru M.Sadaiyandi, who is the father of the deceased Thiru M.S.Pandian in which the 3rd Respondent Inspector of Police replied as follows:-
“Ã4 Ñiu¤Jiw (r£l«-xG§F) fhtš ãiya Mtz§fis gh®itæ£lš, 10.04.2019« njÂæ£L ÂU M.S.gh©o v‹gt® mD¥Ãa kDthdJ flªj 04.03.2019 m‹W Ã4 Ñiu¤Jiw fhtš ãiya¤Âš bgw¥g£lJ, m«kD r«gªjkhf fd« fhtš Miza® mt®fS¡F mD¥Ãa gš m¿¡ifæ‹ efš ϤJl‹ Ïiz¤J mD¥g¥gL»wJ. mrš kD ϤJl‹ Ïiz¤J mD¥g¥gL»wJ v‹gij gâÎl‹ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸ»nw‹.”
So, a perusal of Ex.P13 the 3rd Respondent wrongly mentioned the date of complaint of Thiru M.S.Pandian as 10.04.2019 instead of the complaint dated
10.07.2018 and receipt of his complaint in Keeraithurai Police Station on 04.03.2019. During the cross-examination, PW1 categorically replied to a question put forth by the Respondents side that his son-in-law sought police protection for his life threat. PW1 denied all the suggestion put forth by the
Respondents’ counsel as false.

16. The 1st Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. RW1 filed 10 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to
R10. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that he was the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City from the year 2018 to 2019. RW1 also admitted that he was the investigation officer in Cr.No.716/2018 and the same was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. RW1 further admitted that when PW1 was in the prison between 03.08.2018 to 21.11.2018 he went for search in the house of the Complainant and seized some money. But he did not know that amount was the gift money for the ear boring ceremony of the daughter-in-law of the Complainant. The admission of the RW1 during his cross-examination is as follows:-
“eh‹ kJiu khehfu cjé Mizauhf 2018 Kjš 2019 tiu gâòçªJŸns‹. . . . . . . eh‹ vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ã£LŸs kDjhu® Ûjhd 2 tH¡FfŸ kh©òäF
ca®ÚÂk‹w¤jhš u¤J brŒa¥g£l égu« vd¡F¤ bjçahJ. eh‹ vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ã£LŸs tH¡Ffëš F.v©. 716/2018 v‹w tH¡»š eh‹jh‹ érhuiz mÂfhç v‹whš
rçjh‹. . . . . . . kDjhu® Áiwæš ÏUªj fhyf£lkhd 3.8.2018 Kjš, 21.11.2018 m‹W kDjhu® Å£o‰F ÚÂk‹w Mizæ‹ngçš nrhjid brŒÍ«nghJ mt® Å£oš fhjâ éHh Ko¤J mš tuÎ it¡f¥g£l bkhŒ gz¤ij¡ if¥g‰¿ndh« v‹whš mJ bkhŒ gzkh v‹W bjçahJ. Mdhš gz¤ij¡ if¥g‰¿ndh«. Å£oš eilbg‰w nrhjidæš MÍj§fŸ vJΫ if¥g‰wéšiy v‹whš rçjh‹.

17. The 3rd Respondent filed a proof affidavit and examined as RW2.
RW1 filed 10 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R11 to R20. In his proof affidavit he submits that there is no connection between him and the Theppakulam police station crime numbers 716/2018, 717/2018, 999/2018. He had only registered the case in Keeraithurai police station Cr.No.415/2018. He had also reiterated the averments made in his counter statement. During the cross-examination, RW2 admitted that Thiru M.S.Pandian and his father Thiru Sadayandi lodged complaint for his life threatening to the higher police officials. RW2 also admitted the awareness of the complaint lodged by Thiru M.S.Pandian on 10.07.2018 to the higher officials. The complaint was already marked as Ex.P12. RW2 admitted also that the said complaint was received by
Keeraithurai police station and the enquiry report was marked as Ex.P13.
During his cross-examination RW2 has stated as follows :-
“ÂU v«.v°.gh©oa‹ k‰W« mtuJ jf¥gdh® rilah©o M»nah® v«.v°.gh©oa‹ cæU¡F Mg¤J ÏU¥gjhf v§fŸ cauÂfhçælK« v‹ålK« òfh® bfhL¤j éguK« bjçÍkh v‹whš v‹ål« bfhL¡féšiy. cauÂfhçfël« bfhL¤j
égu« bjçÍ«. . . . . . . . ÂU v«.v°.gh©oaå‹ jªij rilah©o mt®fŸ jftš m¿Í« cçik¢ r£l¤Â‹go jdJ kfå‹ 10.07.18 njÂæ£l kDé‹ngçš vL¤j elto¡ifæ‹ égu§fis
nf£lbghGJ 10.04.2019 njÂæ£L ÂU v«.v°.gh©o mD¥Ãa kDthdJ 4.3.19 m‹W Ñiu¤Jiw fhtšãiya¤Âš bgw¥g£lJ vd krhM.13š fhz¥gL»wj v‹whš rçjh‹. mªj kDé‹ngçš eh§fŸ clodahf elto¡if vL¤ÂUªjhš mt® 18.04.2019 m‹W bfhiy brŒa¥g£oU¡f kh£lh® v‹whš ÂU v«.v°.gh©o mt®fŸ jiykiwthf ÏUªj fhuz¤jhš ghJfh¥ò bfhL¡f Koaéšiy. eh‹ k.rh.M.13 tçir 3š fhz¥gL« foj¤Â‹go 4.3.19 m‹W ÂU v«.v°.gh©oadJ Kiwp£oid bg‰W 5.3.19 m‹nw eh‹ vdJ cauÂfhçfS¡F m¿¡if rk®¥Ã¤ÂU¥gš mš Tw¥g£LŸs r§fÂfŸ c©ik¡F khwhdit v‹whš rçašy. eh‹ mªj m¿¡ifæš T¿ÍŸsthW
v«.v°.gh©oaid njo¢ bršyéšiy v‹whY«, nt©Lbk‹nw mtuJ òfhiu j鮤J v§fsJ flikia brŒa¤jt¿ gh©oa‹ bfhiyÍ©lj‰F v§fsJ my£Áa«jh‹ fhuz« v‹whš
rçašy.”

18. The 2nd Respondent examined as RW3 and no document was marked on his side. In the proof affidavit RW3 reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. He has admitted that he was the party to the search conducted in the house of the Complainant. During the cross-examination RW3 admitted that he was working as Inspector of Police in Theppakulam PS up to the end of the year 2018. He also admitted that he is the Complainant in Cr.No.716/2018 and he was the investigating officer in Cr.No.999/19. RW3 also admitted that he and the 1st Respondent went to the house of the Complainant for search and seized some money. But he did not know whether the recovered money was the gift money for the ear boring ceremony or not.
His admission during the cross-examination is as follows:-
“eh‹ bj¥g¡Fs« fhtš ãiya MŒthsuhf 2018M« M©L
ÏWÂtiugâah‰¿nd‹. . . . . eh‹ vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ã£LŸs tH¡Ffëš F.v©.716/2018 v‹w tH¡»š eh‹jh‹ òfh®jhu® v‹whš rçjh‹. Mdhš F.v©.999/2019 tH¡»š eh‹ érhuiz mÂfhçahf ÏUªnj‹. . . kDjhu® FL«g¤Â‹ fhjâ éHh elªj égu« vd¡F¤ bjçÍ«. Mdhš mªj ãfœ¢Á el¤j¡TlhJ vd F¿¥ghiz bfhL¤ÂUªjh®. 1« v®kDjhuuJ c¤juit v®¤J kDjhu® ju¥Ãd® jh¡fš brŒj kDéš kh©òäF ca®ÚÂk‹w« kJiu »isæš Miz x‹W bgw¥g£L ãfœ¢Á elªjJ v‹whš rçjh‹. . . . . . kDjhu® ÁiwæèUªj fhyf£lkhd 3.8.2018 Kjš 21.11.18 m‹W kDjhu® Å£o‰F ÚÂk‹w Mizæ‹ngçš nrhjid brŒÍ«nghJ mt® Å£oš fhjâ éHh Ko¤J mš tuÎ it¡f¥g£l bkhŒ gz¤ij¡ if¥g‰¿ndh« v‹whš mJ bkhŒ gzkh v‹W bjçahJ. Mdhš gz¤ij¡ if¥g‰¿ndh«.”
19. The main allegation of the Complainant is that he and his family members were falsely implicated in various cases by the Respondents police because they were belongs to the opposition party. The Respondents No.1 & 2 entered into his house under the guise of search when he was in the prison and seized Rs.50 Lakhs of gift money collected in ear boring ceremony but they accounted only Rs.18,86,000/- and they had threatened the women members of his family that if they lodged any complaint relating to the recovery of amount, they will foisted false case against them. Another allegation of the Complainant is that though his son-in-law had lodged a complaint for his life threatening to the 3rd Respondent police station on 10.07.2018, no action was taken by the 3rd Respondent and finally he was murdered by his rival party on
18.04.2019.

20. Initially the Respondents had argued that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation U/s 36(2) The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However it was discussed earlier in this order that the complaint is maintainable because of the specific allegations leveled by the Complainant. Though he has not mentioned the date of occurrence, it was later confirmed by the Respondents No.1 & 2 that such occurrence was took place on 21.11.2018 and the Complainant has also filed his complaint within the stipulated time and hence this complaint is not barred by limitation. A perusal of the evidence let in on both sides, it reveals that the Respondents No.1 & 2 threatened the women family members of the Complainant while conducting the search in the house of the Complainant and the Respondents No.1 & 2 had not denied the allegation in their counter statement and even a suggestion was not put forth by them to PW1 during his cross-examination. So, this Commission has come to the conclusion that the Respondents No.1 & 2
threatened the women family members of the Complainant at the time of search conducted in the house of the Complainant on 21.11.2018.

21. Another allegation of the Complainant that his son-in-law had lodged a complaint for his life threatening to the 3rd Respondent police station on 10.07.2018 but no action was taken by the 3rd Respondent and finally he was murdered by his rival party on 18.04.2019. To prove the above allegation, the Complainant filed the documents in Ex.P12 & P13. Ex.P12 is the complaint given by Thiru M.S.Pandian, the son-in-law of the Complainant and in this complaint he prayed to give police protection to him and his family members for life threatening by his enemies. Ex.P13 is the enquiry report conducted by the 3rd Respondent regarding with the complaint given by Thiru M.S.Pandian and the same was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirupparankundram on 04.03.2019 and in this report the 3rd Respondent has concluded as follows:-
“ 6. érhuiz KoÎ
nk‰f©l el¥ò¤jhŸ r«gªjkhf, kDjhu® ÂU M.S.gh©oa‹ v‹gt®, gyKiw neçš br‹W gh®¤J, kD r«gªjkhf érhç¡f K‰g£L«, nk‰go kDjhu® m«Kftçæš ÏšyhjjhY«, ÅL ó£l¥g£L ÏU¥gjhY«, nkY«, th®L nuhªJ k‰W« áf£o§ mYtyhf bjhl®ªJ fhty®fŸ m¥gFÂæš gâ brŒtjhY«, cça ghJfh¥ò elto¡iffŸ m¥gFÂæš nk‰bfhŸs¥g£L tUtjhš, Ï«kD Ûjhd érhuizia ϤJl‹ Ko¤J¡ bfh©L nkšelto¡if vL¡f njitæšiy v‹w érhuiz m¿¡ifæid gâªJ rk®¥Ã¡»nw‹.”
A perusal of the Ex.P13 enquiry report of the 3rd Respondent, it reveals that the
3rd Respondent received the complaint of Thiru M.S.Pandian forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirupparankundram on 04.03.2019 and in turn he sent the enquiry report on the very next day 05.03.2019 stating that he went many times to the house of Thiru M.S.Pandian for enquiry but he was not available in the house and hence he completed the enquiry and concluded that no need further action in this matter. So, it clearly shows that the 3rd Respondent did not take any action on the complaint of Thiru M.S.Pandian and because of such negligent act of the 3rd Respondent, the son-in-law of the
Complainant namely Thiru M.S.Pandian was murdered on 18.04.2019. So, the 3rd Respondent acted in lethargic manner and due to which a young Advocate eliminated from the earth by his opposite party. The reason given by the 3rd Respondent that he went to the house of Thiru M.S.Pandian and he was not available in the house is not acceptable one. So, the negligent act of the 3rd Respondent is the reason for such a murder and due to his negligence act only the young Advocate Thiru M.S. was murdered.
22. Considering the materials on record and arguments of both the parties, it is categorically proved by the Complainant that when he was in the prison, the 1st & 2nd Respondents entered into his house under the guise of search and recovered money from his house and when the women family members of the Complainant asked the 1st & 2nd Respondents about the recovery of gift money, they had threatened them if they lodged any complaint relating to the recovery of amount, they will foisted false case against them. It is the duty of the 3rd Respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by Thiru M.S.Pandian and protect the rights of Thiru M.S.Pandian. But even a complaint lodged by the deceased Thiru M.S.Pandian to give police protection to him, the 3rd Respondent did not take any action on his complaint and closed the same which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondents No.1 to 3 had violated the human rights of the Complainant. The Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
23. Point No.3: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the Respondents 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 his human rights from the Respondents and fixing of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- each from the Respondents No.1 & 2 and Rs.2,00,000/- from the Respondent No.3 and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. The Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

24. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-

The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant Thiru V.K.Gurusamy S/o Krishnan residing in No.19A, NMR Road, Kamarajapuram, Madurai, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.25,000/- each from the Respondents No.1 &2 and
Rs.2,00,000/- from the Respondent No.3 (Totally Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) as per the Rules.
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents as per the Rules.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witnesses :
PW1 Thiru V.K.Gurusamy

Complainant Side Documents :

Ex.P1 30.07.2018 Copy of the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent.

Ex.P2 02.08.2018 Copy of the order in W.P.(MD)No.17243/2018.

Ex.P3 03.08.2018 Copy of the FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.716/2018.

Ex.P4 03.08.2018 Copy of the FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.717/2018.

Ex.P5 04.11.2018 Copy of the FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.999/2018.

Ex.P6 02.09.2016 Copy of the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16393/2016.

Ex.P7 10.06.2018 Copy of the FIR in Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.415/2018 and the statements of witnesses.

Ex.P8 02.10.2018 Copy of the reply sent by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Head Quarters, Madurai City.

Ex.P9 21.02.2020 Copy of the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1972/2020.

Ex.P10 21.11.2018 Copy of the search list.

Ex.P11 22.03.2019 Copy of the order in Crl.R.P.No.26/2019

Ex.P12 26.11.2018 Copy of the reply sent by the Superintendent of Police
Madurai Dt. with the complaint of Tr.M.S.Pandian.

Ex.P13 02.07.2019 Copy of the reply sent by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Head Quarters, Madurai City with enquiry report.

Ex.P14 12.06.2018 Copy of the FIR in Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.420/2018 and some documents.

Ex.P15 18.04.2019 Copy of the FIR in Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.412/2019

Ex.P16 08.05.2019 Copy of the order in Crl.M.P.No.85/2019

Ex.P17 13.12.2023 Copy of the order in W.P.(MD)No.27209/2023.

Respondents Side Witnesses :

RW1 Thiru C.Udayakumar

RW2 Thiru M.Manikandan

RW3 Thiru A.Nagarajan

Respondents Side Documents :

Ex.R1 03.08.2018 Copy of FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.717/2018 .

Ex.R2 04.11.2018 Copy of FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.999/2018.

Ex.R3 03.08.2018 Copy of FIR in Theppakulam PS Cr.No.716/2018.

Ex.R4 29.10.2018 Copy of Detention Order.

Ex.R5 26.10.2018 Copy of Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Law and Order, Madurai City.

Ex.R6 20.11.2018 Copy of Search Warrant.
Ex.R7 26.10.2018 Copy of Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Law and Order, Madurai City.

Ex.R8 21.11.2018 Copy of the search list and athatchi.

Ex.R9 07.04.2018 Copy of Proceedings of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City.

Ex.R10 10.08.2018 Copy of the order in Crl.M.P.No.2922/2018

Ex.R11 10.06.2018 Copy of the FIR in Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.415/2018.

Ex.R12 10.10.2020 Copy of final report in Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.415/2018.

Ex.R13 09.01.2020 Copy of the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17424/2019.

Ex.R14 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.800/2019.

Ex.R15 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.801/2019.

Ex.R16 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.804/2019.

Ex.R17 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.810/2019.

Ex.R18 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.811/2019.

Ex.R19 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.889/2019.

Ex.R20 04.06.2020 Copy of the order in HCP.(MD)No.1077/2019.

Sd/-
MEMBER

To

The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009

Copy to

(1)Thiru V.K.Gurusamy, S/o Krishnan, No.19A, NMR Road, Kamarajapuram,
Madurai-625009

(2)Thiru C.Udayakumar, DSP, Dindigul Sub-Division, Dindigul.

(3)Thiru A.Nagarajan, Inspector of Police, H-2 Stanley Police Station, Chennai.

(4)Thiru M.Manikandan, Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai.

Mmk 08.09.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar