Misuse of power by police officers, fabrication of records, and human rights violation were key legal principles established in the judgment.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

INTRODUCTORY

1. The petitioner registered a false case against the third respondent and thereafter, took him to a market where he was doing business by permitting him to wear only an underwear and assaulted in full public view. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police also were there with the petitioner and actively took part in the illegal action. The petitioner has gone to the extent of fabricating records to make it appear as if minimum force was used while arresting the third respondent. The State Human Rights Commission, on the basis of materials, arrived at a factual finding against the petitioner and other police officers and directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the third respondent as compensation. Even though there was no observation that the amount shall be recovered from the concerned police officers, still the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition to quash the order, directing payment of compensation to the third respondent on account of human rights violation.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The third respondent preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, holding that he was implicated in a false case by the petitioner and put him in remand after removing his clothes. Thereafter, he was taken to Gandhi Market Arch in a van with handcuff. He was beaten indiscriminately in the presence of public. The third respondent alleged that he was not given proper treatment. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on a false charge and remanded to custody. Subsequently, the complainant himself appeared before the learned Magistrate and deposed that he has not preferred any such complaint against the third respondent. The learned Magistrate, therefore, granted him bail. Thereafter, the third respondent preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission alleging human rights violation.

3. Before the State Human Rights Commission, the petitioner and two other officers contended that there was no such human rights violation. According to the petitioner, a complaint was preferred by Thiru. P. Mani against the third respondent and his brother and a case in Crime No.833 of 2007 was registered before the Gandhi Market Police Station, Trichy. Since the third respondent was an accused, he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The third respondent resisted his arrest and as such, the police used mild force. The petitioner and other two police officers maintained that there was no human rights violation, so as to give a cause of action to the third respondent to claim compensation.

4. The third respondent produced independent witnesses to prove his case of human rights violation. The petitioner and the other two police officers examined R.W.1 to demonstrate that there was no such incident of beating by taking the third respondent to a public market.

5. The State Human Rights Commission considered the complaint, in the light of the defence taken by the petitioner and the evidence adduced by the respective parties and arrived at a clear conclusion that there was a grave violation of human rights of the third respondent and as such, the State is liable to pay him compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, who was the third respondent in the complaint, is before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was no evidence adduced by the third respondent to show that the police fabricated a false case against him and violated his human rights. According to the learned counsel, the police acted, pursuant to the complaint preferred against the third respondent. Therefore, the complaint preferred by the third respondent before the Human Rights Commission for compensation was not maintainable.

DISCUSSION:

7. The background facts indicates that the third respondent settled a dispute involving Thiru. P. Mani, the defacto complainant in Crime No.