THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER. Tmt.R.Reka … Complainant -Vs- (1)Tmt.N.Lakshmi, Inspector of Police, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai. (2)Tmt.S.Kalpana, WPC, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai. (3)Tmt.M.Indirani, WPC, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai. … Respondents

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

Wednesday, the 4th day of June 2025

SHRC Case No.3793/22/13 of 2023

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

Tmt.R.Reka … Complainant

-Vs-

(1)Tmt.N.Lakshmi, Inspector of Police, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai.
(2)Tmt.S.Kalpana, WPC, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai.
(3)Tmt.M.Indirani, WPC, W3 AWPS, Egmore, Chennai.
… Respondents

ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is residing at Pudupet, Chennai. She is practicing as an Advocate in Hon’ble Madras High Court since 2012. She got marriage with one Thiru Srigopi @ Babu on 10.09.2021. There was a marital dispute between her and her husband and extreme physical, sexual, mental, economic and emotional violence in the hands of her husband. So, she lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 04.08.2022 and the
Writer from the W3 AWPS, Egmore called her by orally and asked her to
appear immediately on 14.08.2022 and no time was given to her to appear whereas the accused was given so much respect by ill-treating her and she was treated in disrespectful manner and worst body language. She appeared on 18.08.2022 before the above said police station and her husband was also appeared. But no action was taken against her complaint. Hence she preferred a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane on 24.08.2022 U/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C. However, no action was taken on her representation also. Therefore, she filed a petition U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai on 13.09.2022. The Court also ordered the police to investigate and file a report. However, no statement was recorded by the police and finally she appeared in the above said police station on 01.11.2022 and the police tried to convince her for family counseling and the police also directed her to write what they say but she did not do so. Though she pleaded the Respondents police to register a FIR on her complaint, they did not hear her words. Finally, on her various efforts FIR was registered on 18.12.2022 U/s 323,406,498A,506(i) of IPC. The police have treated her in an illegitimate, inhuman manner and irresponsive way by giving mental torture whenever she appears before them especially by Writer, Constable Tmt.Kalpana & Inspector. She already had death threat which she insisted to police and inspite of that she had to undergo mental torture from the W3 woman police too. She so scared to appear before the police station. Since the police treated her so worst whereas the accused Thiru Srigopi was treated so well. The police took 4½ months to register FIR from the date of filing complaint. The FIR itself had not been filed in a simple procedure, it costed enormous effort of repeated Court hearings and repeated police station visits to file FIR. She faced innumerable harassment and hardship by the police. Aggravated by such apathetic behavior by police, she filing the complaint before this Commission to intervene and enquire the matter and to take appropriate action against the Respondents.

2. The defence of the 1st Respondent as could be gathered from the
counter statement filed by her is as follows:-
The 1st Respondent denied all the allegations contained in the
complaint except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The time line of complaint mentioned in the complaint with the tabular column of date, incidents and remarks are untrue and incorrect. From the first instance the Complainant demanded to remand her husband even though she was
explained and treated with much respect by stating that the police officials are directed to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C in matrimonial cases and further she was properly advised to co-operate for investigation, since the Complainant’s complaint contains dowry incidents and therefore the complaint was referred to Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer for necessary report by intimating the same to the concerned learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and FIR was registered after conducting fair and transparent investigation. But the Complainant was continuously demanded the arrest of her husband and started to accuse the officials for not arresting her husband. Further there was no question of harassment or ill-treatment of Complainant at any point of time by any officials. The allegations leveled against the police in the complaint are all untrue and false. It is false to state that the police have treated the Complainant in an illegitimate, inhuman manner and irresponsive way by giving mental torture whenever she appear before them especially by
Writer, Constable Kalpana and Inspector are all false and incorrect. The 1st
Respondent submits that the police replied to the Court with same statement of ‘Awaiting for Domestic Incident Report’ as stated above the Complainant’s complaint contains dowry incidents and therefore the complaint was referred to Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer for necessary report by intimating the same to the concerned learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. It is false to state that “by this way the police keep on procrastinating the inquiry” and the allegation was vexatious. The allegations leveled against the Respondents in the tabular column are all false. The Complainant never made any sort of allegation as alleged in the complaint before the Respondents or superiors of the Respondents, as an act of afterthought for not arresting her husband she had given the above complaint to score her vengeance. The Respondents by following the guidelines of the investigation contemplated under family disputes and referred the complaint of the Complainant to the Dowry Prohibition Officer/ Social Welfare Officer for necessary report which contains dowry incidents and it was well informed to the concerned learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and registered FIR after conducting fair and transparent investigation. So, the allegation that there was a delay in registering FIR is false. This Respondent was incharge of the concerned W-3 AWPS till 18.01.2023 and she discharged her duty by following the procedures of investigation. So, it was crystal clear that the harassment and ill-treatment are self invented story of the Complainant because of the officials not registering the FIR as against her husband at first instances and not arrested her husband as demanded by her. The entire complaint of the Complainant did not disclose any human rights violation and it clearly proved that this Respondent was targeted for not arresting the husband of the Complainant and the entire complaint was devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The 2nd & 3rd Respondents adopted the counter statement of the 1st Respondent and they had filed adoption memo and the same was recorded.
3. The points for consideration before this Commission are as follows:
(1) Whether the Respondent had violated the human rights of the
Complainant?
(2) What reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
4. Point No.1 :- This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that there was a marital dispute between her and her husband and extreme physical, sexual, mental, economic and emotional violence in the hands of her husband. So, she lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 04.08.2022 and the Writer from the W3 AWPS, Egmore called her by orally and asked her to appear immediately on 14.08.2022 and no time was given to her to appear whereas the accused was given so much respect by ill-treating her and she was treated in disrespectful manner and worst body language. She appeared on 18.08.2022 before the above said police station and her husband was also appeared. But no action was taken against her complaint. Hence she preferred a complaint with the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Triplicane on 24.08.2022 U/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C. However, no action was taken on her representation also. Therefore, she filed a petition U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai on 13.09.2022. The Court also ordered the police to investigate and file a report. However, no statement was recorded by the police and finally she appeared in the above said police station on 01.11.2022 and the police tried to convince her for family counseling and the police also directed her to write what they say but she did not do so. Though she pleaded the Respondents police to register a FIR on her complaint, they did not hear her words. Finally, on her various efforts FIR was registered only on
18.12.2022 U/s 323, 406, 498A, 506(i) of IPC. The police have treated her in an illegitimate, inhuman manner and irresponsive way by giving mental torture whenever she appears before them especially by Writer, Constable
Tmt.Kalpana & Inspector. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and hence she prayed to take appropriate action against them.

5. Per contra, the case of the Respondent is that from the first instance the Complainant demanded to remand her husband even though she was
explained and treated with much respect by stating that the police officials are directed to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C in matrimonial cases and further she was properly advised to co-operate for investigation, since the Complainant’s complaint contains dowry incidents and therefore the complaint was referred to Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer for necessary report by intimating the same to the concerned learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and FIR was registered after conducting fair and transparent investigation. But the Complainant was continuously demanded the arrest of her husband and started to accuse the officials for not arresting her husband. Further there was no question of harassment or ill-treatment of Complainant at any point of time by any officials. The allegations leveled against the police in the complaint are all untrue and false. It is false to state that the police have treated the Complainant in an illegitimate, inhuman manner and irresponsive way by giving mental torture whenever she appear before them especially by Writer, Constable Kalpana and Inspector are all false and incorrect and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. In order to prove her case, the Complainant examined herself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. The Complainant also produced 10 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P10.

7. Per contra, on behalf of the Respondents the 1st Respondent examined herself as RW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in her counter statement. No document was filed on the side of the Respondents.

8. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the allegation against the Respondents is proved and whether the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant or not.

9. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. In her proof affidavit the Complainant reiterated the same allegations in her complaint and she marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Ex.P1 is the complaint copy of her dated 04.08.2022 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Ex.P2 is the CD contains the photographs and the printed photographs showing the physical abuse and wounds in the hands of her husband. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary issued by Venkateswara Hospitals. Ex.P4 is the discharge summary issued by the Apollo Hospitals. Ex.P5is the representation addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane,
Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and the Inspector of Police, F1 AWPS, Chennai, by the Complainant dated 24.08.2022. ExP6 is the copy of the petition & affidavit of the Complainant filed before the learned Addl. Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 series are the notices issued to the Complainant for enquiry by the Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer, South Chennai. Ex.P8 is the case details of Crl.M.P.No.934/2022 on the file of Additional Mahila Court at Magisterial Level, Egmore, Chennai shows that the police filed FIR on 18.12.2022 and hence the petition was disposed of on 21.12.2022 and the adjudication for the date of 21.12.2022 is Ex.P9. Ex.P10 is the FIR No.5/2022 filed on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Complainant.

10. During the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the dispute between her and her husband was the matrimonial dispute. She also admitted that she did not mention the incidents in her complaint which are made in paragraph 20 of her proof affidavit. She also admitted that in Ex.P5 representation addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane by her does not mention any human rights violation in the hands of the Respondents police. PW1 also admitted that the 2nd Respondent is her childhood friend. She also admitted that except the complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, she did not lodge any complaint as related to the Respondents police and the photographs showing the injuries on her body which was marked as Ex.P2 series are sustained by her in prior to July
2022. She also admitted that after submitting a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police on 14.08.2022, she filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai within 10 days that the 1st Respondent did not take any action on her complaint. During the cross-examination PW1 deposed that the 1st Respondent compelled her to join with her husband.

11. The 1st Respondent filed a proof affidavit and examined as RW1. No document was marked on her side. In her proof affidavit, RW1 simply says that the Complainant has not given the complaint directly to her and it was given to her superiors. Further, the Complainant has not produced any materials evidence along with the complaint and also during the investigation. The concerned Inspector of AWPS was sent for training and therefore this Respondent was given incharge of that AWPS. Moreover, the Complainant was not co-operated and she refused for counseling and she insisted to arrest her husband and in-laws. Since, the allegation in the complaint related to dowry harassment, it was forwarded to Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer for getting reports regarding dowry incident. In the meantime the Complainant approached the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, for registration of case. Thereafter, this Respondent reported to the
Court about the progress and finally after getting reports from Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer FIR was registered and it was communicated to the Court and in the month of January the concerned Inspector of W-3 AWPS resumed duty and this Respondent handed over the case files to her. After six months from relieving as incharge of W-3 AWPS the Complainant filed the false complaint before this Commission. Hence the
1st Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that she received the complaint of the Complainant through her superior officer on 12.08.2022. RW1 admitted that if the cognizable offence made out in the complaint FIR would be registered or otherwise CSR would be issued. She admitted that she neither issued CSR nor registered FIR on the complaint of PW1. She further admitted that FIR was registered in Cr.No.5/2022 only on 18.12.2022 and the
FIR was marked as Ex.P10. The Sections of law mentioned in that FIR are
Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 506(i) of IPC. She also admitted that those are cognizable offences and the same are sufficient to arrest the accused person. RW1 admitted that the Ex.P10 FIR was registered on the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint made by PW1. RW1 also admitted that the Sections 406, 323 & 506(i) of IPC are not related to matrimonial dispute. RW1 admitted that she did not take any steps to seize the jewels of the Complainant mentioned in the complaint. RW1 admitted that the Complainant filed a petition before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore which was marked as Ex.P6. She admitted that she had registered the FIR only on the direction of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore and she started her investigation from that date only.

13. During the cross-examination, RW1 admitted that the photos in
Ex.P2 series were received by her along with the complaint Ex.P1. Later, RW1 deposed that the Complainant had given her marriage photos only and she did not produce any other photos. However, she admitted that before registering FIR, the Complainant had given the photographs of her showing the injuries sustained by her. She also admitted that she did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 50 of Cr.P.C that if an injured person come to the police station she has to send the person to the hospital for medical treatment. However, in this case she did not do so. RW1 also deposed during her cross-examination that she received the complaint of the Complainant on
12.08.2022 and she took six days for enquiry on that complaint. However, she had registered the FIR on 18.12.2022. RW1 also deposed that she enquired the accused persons, who were mentioned as opposite party in the FIR before the registration of FIR on 15.08.2022 and on 17.08.2022.

14. Except the Complainant and the 1st Respondent, no other witnesses examined by both sides. Heard the oral arguments of both the parties and perused the written arguments filed by them. In the written argument filed by the Complainant, she pleaded that though the complaint given by her to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City and received by the 1st Respondent on 12.08.2022, it was belatedly registered by the 1st Respondent on 18.12.2022 that also on the Court direction in a petition filed by the Complainant U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. So, it shows the extra-ordinary delay in registering the FIR and it was not explained by the 1st Respondent which shows the lethargic attitude of the 1st Respondent. The FIR was registered by the 1st Respondent only after taking enormous efforts by the Complainant and after preferring complaint to the higher police officials and subsequently she filed a petition
U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore. So, the above facts clearly shows the manner in which the Complainant had been harassed, tortured and subjected to human rights violation by the
Respondents Police, who did not have any scant respect for the law enforcing authorities. The clear admissions made by RW1 in the cross-examination exposes the Respondents Police for having violated the human rights and proves that the Complainant has been subjected to innumerable harassment, torture and hardship by the lethargic attitude of the Respondents police pursuant to the complaint given by her.

15. Per contra, the counsel for the Respondents argued that the complaint was not given directly to the 1st Respondent, but she sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City on 04.08.2022. But in her proof affidavit paragraph No.20 she claimed that prior to the above complaint dated 04.08.2022 she had approached the W3 AWPS but they were inattentive, to the contrary in her complaint dated 04.08.2022 before the
Commissioner of Police Ex.P1 and her representation to the Assistant
Commissioner dated 25.08.2022 Ex.P5 and her affidavit for the petition U/s
156(3) of Cr.P.C Ex.P6 the above materials clearly proved the fact that the Complainant had given false evidence. Since the Complainant’s complaint contains dowry incidents, the complaint was referred to Dowry Prohibition Officer/Social Welfare Officer according to law and because of getting the report from the said Officer, FIR was registered belatedly.

16. The case of the Complainant is that her complaint was not
registered immediately, but after 4 ½ months belatedly it was registered by the 1st Respondent and the same was also admitted by the 1st Respondent by stating that the FIR was registered only in the month of December 2022. Ex.P1 complaint is received by the 1st Respondent on 12.08.2022. Though she came to know that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences, she did not register any FIR immediately. As per the law and as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after receipt of a complaint in which the cognizable offences are made out, the Police have to register a FIR. In the case of matrimonial dispute is concerned the complaint may be forwarded to the Dowry Prohibition Officer for violation of any dowry prohibition rules. But in that case it is clearly shows that there was no dowry prohibition offences disclosed in the complaint. But only the cognizable offences punishable U/s 498(A), 406, 323 & 506(i) of IPC are made out and so FIR has to be registered immediately. However, the 1st Respondent, the then Inspector of Police, W-3 AWPS, failed to do her duty ensured in the law to register a FIR after receiving a complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences. It is the admitted fact, the 1st Respondent failed to register FIR which made out prima facie cognizable offence. But she had registered the FIR only after 4 ½ months that also on the direction of the learned Mahila Court, Egmore which shows that the 1st Respondent has failed to do her official duty and it caused mentally agony to the Complainant which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and also shows that the 1st Respondent had acted in negligent manner.

17. It is essential to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari –vs- Govt. of U.P. & others case is as follows:-
111.(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
Therefore, the 1st Respondents had also violated the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant.

18. The case against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents is concerned, even in her complaint as well as in her evidence PW1 failed to prove the role of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents. The 2nd Respondent is said to be her childhood friend and no specific allegation made against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents had not violated any of the human rights of the Complainant and the complaint against them is liable to be dismissed.
19. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, it is categorically established by the Complainant that the 1st Respondent even received the complaint on 12.08.2022 it was belatedly registered by the 1st Respondent on 18.12.2022 that also on the Court direction in a petition filed by the Complainant U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. So, it shows the extra-ordinary delay in registering the FIR and it was not explained by the
Respondent which shows the lethargic attitude of the 1st Respondent. Therefore, the action on the part of the 1st Respondent amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and she had failed to prove her innocence that she had performed her duty in accordance with law. Therefore, this
Commission holds that the 1st Respondent had violated the human rights of the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to prove that the 2nd & 3rd
Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant and hence this Commission holds that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents had not committed any violation of human rights against the Complainant and hence the complaint against the 2nd & 3rd Respondent is liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.

20. Point No.2: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the 1st Respondent 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 1st Respondent and fixing of Rs.25,000/- 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/- as compensation from the 1st Respondent. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Commission warned the 1st Respondent not to act in such a manner in future. This Point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Complainant Tmt.R.Reka, residing in Door No.27/14, Narayana Naicken Street, Pudupet, Chennai, 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/- from the 1st Respondent as per the Rules. The complaint against the 2nd & 3rd Respondent is dismissed.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witness :
PW1 Tmt.R.Reka

Complainant Side Documents :

Ex.P1 04.08.2022 Copy of complaint sent to the Commissioner of Police,
Chennai by the Complainant.

Ex.P2 Series CD and Photos.

Ex.P3 22.01.2022 Copy of discharge summary issued by Venkateswara
Hospitals, Chennai.

Ex.P4 09.06.2022 Copy of discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospitals,
Chennai.

Ex.P5 04.08.2022 Copy of complaints sent to the Dy. Commissioner of
Police, Triplicane, Chennai and others by the
Complainant.

Ex.P6 13.09.2022 Copy of the petition & affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.934/2022 filed before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

Ex.P7 — Copy of notices dated 8.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 issued by the Dowry Prohibition Officer/District Social Welfare Officer, South Chennai.

Ex.P8 Series Copy of case details in Crl.M.P.No.934/2022 on the file of learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

Ex.P9 21.12.2022 Copy of adjudication order dated 21.12.2002 of Addl. Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.934/2022.

Ex.P10 18.12.2022 Copy of the FIR No.5/2022 of AWPS, Egmore.

Respondents Side Witness :

RW1 Tmt.N.Lakshmi

Respondents Side Documents : Nil

Sd/-
MEMBER
To

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

Copy to

(1) Tmt.R.Reka, 27/14 Narayana Naicken Street, Pudupet, Chennai-600002.

(2) Tmt.N.Lakshmi, Inspector of Police, F-7 Maternity Hospital Station, Egmore, Chennai.

Mmk 04.06.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar