Shrc order one lakh fine to inspector

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – TAMIL NADU

143- P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,

Greenways Road, Chennai – 28

 

Thursday, the 4th day of March, 2021

 

 

PRESENT

HON’BLE THIRU D.JAYACHANDRAN, B.A., B.L.,

MEMBER

 

S.H.R.C.1652 of 2018

 

Tmt.J.Sundari

w/o Jeganathan

Arundadiar Street

Irundai & PO

Ulundurpet Taluk

Villupuram District                                                        … Complainant

 

-vs-

 

  1. Tmt.Ezhilarasi

Presently Inspector of Police

Ulundurpet Police Station

 

  1. Thiru.Murugaraj

The then Head Constable

Thirunavalur Police Station                                             … Respondents

 

 

ORDER

 

Gist of the complaint allegations:-

 

The complainant is residing in Irunthai Village in Villupuram District. On 17.12.2017 one Rajamani and 4 others assaulted the complainant and caused injuries. So she lodged a complaint to the respondent police to take action. But she demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for registering a case, in turn she paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent. Even then, no action was taken. Hence, the complainant gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District for taking action on her complaint. Keeping this in mind, on 08.02.2018 at about 11.30 PM while she was in her house, the respondents along with some other policemen came and tresspassed into her house and slapped on her cheek and also pulled her hair and kicked with shoes. She was also foisted a false case in Cr.No.97/2018 under Section 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC against the complainant. The complainant was illegally detained in the police station and refused to give water, food and even allow her to the natural calls. Therefore, she lodged this complaint before this Commission to take appropriate action against the respondents for their violation of human rights against the complainant.

 

Counter affidavit filed by the respondents:

 

  1. The respondents denied all the averments contained in the complaint filed against him by the complainant. The respondents stated that that there was a civil dispute regarding with the pathway in between the complainant’s family and one Periasamy’s family. On 08.02.2018 there was a scuffle in between the parties and both assaulted each other and the son of the complainant namely Kamaraj lodged a complaint to Thirunavalur police station and registered a case in Cr.No.96 of 2018 for an offences under Section 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 506(ii) IPC. Furthermore, one Subramanian, s/o Periasamy also lodged a complaint at about 11.30 PM against the the complainant’s family and on receiving the same, a case in Cr.No.97 of 2018 for an offence under Section 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC was registered. The 1st respondent took up the investigation in both the cases and after investigation, arrested both parties and produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ulundurpet and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant is false. It is also false to allege that she demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. Since the respondents had acted only in accordance with law and arrested the accused in both cases, they had not violated any of the human rights of the complainant and therefore, the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

  1. The next point for consideration is whether the arrest of the complainant by the 1st respondent is necessity and whether the 1st respondent violated the procedure laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Arnesh Kumar –vs- State of Bihar & another in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014. The Hon’ble Court held that the police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily, casually and mechanically and they should follow the parameters laid down from Section 41 of Cr.P.C. Therefore the arrest of the Complainant is not at all necessary and the 1st Respondent without any valid reason arrested the Complainant in order to take revenge against her because she gave a complaint against the 1st respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. Therefore, the 1st respondent had not only followed the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but also the guidelines issued by National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.

 

 

30. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant has proved her case that the complainant lodged a complaint to the respondent police for the incident took place on 17.12.2017 but the 1st respondent refused to take action on her complaint. It is also proved that the 1st respondent demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and even after on receipt of Rs.3,000/- from her, she further demanded Rs.2,000/- from her. However, the complainant did not pay the same and she lodged a complaint against the 1st respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram for her inaction. It is also proved that though the name of the complainant was not found in the FIR, the 1st respondent prepared 161 (3) CrPC statement and foisted false case against the complainant, arrested and remanded and she was kept in jail for 6 days. Therefore, the 1st respondent/Inspector of Police Tmt.Ezhilarasi had violated the human rights of the complainant and not acted as per guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the National Human Rights Commission. The case against the 2nd respondent is dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.

 

Point No.II:

 

  1. While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the 1st Respondent had violated the human rights of the complainant Tmt.Sundari. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights from the 1st Respondent and fixing of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation to her would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. This Point is answered accordingly.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

The Government of Tamilnadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant/PW1 Sundari within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the same shall recover from the 1st Respondent subsequently as per the rules and regulations.

Sd/-

MEMBER

 

To

 

The Principal Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

 

Copy to:

 

  1. Tmt.J.Sundari

w/o Jeganathan

Arundadiar Street

Irundai & PO

Ulundurpet Taluk

Villupuram District

 

  1. The Special Secretary to Government

Public (HR) Department

Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

 

//By order//

Assistant Registrar (LAW)

Sskr/04/03/2021

You may also like...