Writ petition is allowed; 13.2 Impugned order dated 31.12.2024 passed by SHRC in SHRC Case No.4063 of 2019 is hereby set aside insofar as it relates to petitioner herein. 13.3 Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (H.C.J.) 16.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi To 1.The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Registrar, The Honourable State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarangam, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.  M.SUNDAR, J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mmi W.P.No.12283 of 2021 16.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2025 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.12283 of 2021 and
W.M.P. No.13055 of 2021 in W.P.No.12283 of 2021
M.Ravi … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
St. George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar,
The Honourable State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarangam, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.
3. D.Venugopal
4. S.Shajeeba,
presently Sub Inspector of Police,
Puliyanthoppu Police Station,
Chennai. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the first respondent in SHRC No.4063 of 2019 by order dated
31.12.2020 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Alexis Sudhakar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suresh,
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.S.Udayakumar for R2
Mr.D.Veerasekaran for R3
No appearance for R4
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,]
The captioned Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “SHRC” for the sake of convenience and clarity) in S.H.R.C. Case No.4063 of 2019. By the said order, the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation to the complainant, and to recover Rs.10,000/- each from respondents 1 and 2 therein.
2. The parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the SHRC for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Factual Background:
3.1 The complainant filed a complaint before the SHRC stating that one Vijayakrishnan had borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and
mortgaged the title deeds of his father-in-law’s property as security for repayment of the loan. Vijayakrishnan had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. When presented, the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds,
prompting the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
While the said complaint was pending in C.C. No.3969 of 2016, Vijayakrishnan lodged a complaint with the respondent police, alleging
that the complainant had stolen the documents that had been
mortgaged with him. Under the guise of enquiry, the police summoned the complainant to the station and allegedly detained him on three different occasions. Despite his explanation of the facts, the respondents allegedly threatened the complainant to return the
documents, failing which they would register a false case against him.
3.2 The respondents entered appearance and denied all
allegations. No oral evidence was adduced by either party before the SHRC. Relying solely on the averments in the complaint and the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the SHRC recorded a finding that the respondents had committed a violation of the complainant’s human rights and passed the impugned order. Taking exception to
this, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1/writ petitioner
submitted that, in order to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was summoned to the police station for preliminary enquiry. After recording his statement, the police concluded that the dispute was purely civil in nature and closed the complaint. The complainant had also filed Crl.O.P. No.8511 of 2019 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, and by order dated 15.04.2019, this Court enlarged him on bail in the event of his arrest and directed the police to continue the enquiry.
5. The learned counsel further contended that the impugned order of the SHRC, having been passed solely on the basis of complaint averments and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence, is contrary to Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and is therefore not legally
sustainable.
6. In response, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the complaint clearly establishes that the R1/writ petitioner summoned the complainant without sufficient cause and detained him at the police station on three separate dates, thereby amounting to a violation of human rights. Hence, the impugned order
of the SHRC is justified and does not warrant interference.
7. Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, adopted the submissions of learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The arguments of the learned counsel for all parties have
been duly considered.
9. It is seen that the complainant had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P. No.8511 of 2019 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint filed by Vijayakrishnan. This Court, by order dated 15.04.2019, granted bail to the complainant in the event of arrest and directed the police (the writ petitioner herein) to conduct an enquiry. The Court further observed that if a prima facie case was made out against the complainant, the police could register an FIR, or else close the enquiry within two weeks
from the date of disposal of the petition.
10. The complaint filed against the complainant disclosed allegations involving cognizable offences. In such circumstances, respondent no. 1/writ petitioner, in order to verify the veracity of the allegations, summoned the complainant for enquiry. Mere summoning to the police station for enquiry does not, in itself, constitute a violation of human rights, especially in the absence of any material or specific allegation that the complainant was subjected to harassment, coercion, or torture during the enquiry. Furthermore , this court had
also preserved right to proceed with the enquiry.
11. The impugned order of the SHRC was passed solely on the basis of the complaint averments, without adequate consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 enumerates the functions of the Commission, including in sub-clause (a), the power to enquire, suo motu or on a petition presented by a victim or on his behalf, into allegations of human rights violations or abetment thereof. Further, Section 13 of the Act confers upon the SHRC the powers of a civil court during such enquiries, including the summoning and examination of witnesses under oath, discovery and production of documents, receiving
evidence on affidavit, and requisitioning public records from courts or
government offices.
12. In the present case, the SHRC passed the impugned order without conducting any such enquiry as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act. The Commission did not examine witnesses, record evidence, or conduct any fact-finding beyond considering the
pleadings. This falls short of the procedural safeguards embedded in the statute.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the consideredopinion that the impugned order passed by the SHRC is unsustainable
in law. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
13.1 Writ petition is allowed;
13.2 Impugned order dated 31.12.2024 passed by SHRC in SHRC Case No.4063 of 2019 is hereby set aside insofar as it relates to petitioner herein.
13.3 Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.J.)
16.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mmi
To
1.The Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
St. George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar,
The Honourable State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarangam, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28. 
M.SUNDAR, J., and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mmi
W.P.No.12283 of 2021
16.07.2025