The credibility of allegations of police brutality and torture must be supported by credible evidence, and exoneration in a departmental proceeding can undermine the credibility of such allegations.

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 25.04.2008, in S.H.R.C. No. 5138 of 2005, and quash the same.

2. The facts of the case:-

According to the first respondent, the petitioner viz., Chinnaiah and one Kaliyamoorthy and Periyasamy while working as Inspector of Police and Head Constables respectively in Kulithalai Police Station, on 27.12.2004 took the first respondent to Kulithalai Police Station. From there, again, he was taken to Thogamalai Police Station. In the said Police Station, the first respondent was kept and confined in a separate Cell. He was tortured therein by beating all over his body with lathis by the petitioner and two other Police Head Constables mentioned above. He was also kicked up by them with their boot-legs. The first respondent's younger brother viz., Vairan @ Vaairaperumal came to the Police Station and informed to their Advocate-cum- family friend, by name S. Selvagandhi, who in turn informed the same to the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner insisted that the brother of the first respondent to pay bribe of Rs.30,000/- to him and the abovesaid two Police Head Constables insisted on payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/- each. On such payment, the first respondent was allowed to go from the Police Station. The petitioner and the abovesaid two Police Head Constables strictly warned the first respondent that if he would leak out and reveal the happenings either by way of any complaint or by way of taking treatment at any Government Hospital or Private Hospital, he would be implicated in the murder case of one Sulakshana, a retired Teacher of Vaiganallur Agraharam, Kulithalai, which was being investigated by the petitioner. The first respondent subsequently, gave a complaint to the second respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that one Sulakshana, a retired Teacher was murdered in the midnight of 19/20-11-2004. The petitioner registered a case in Crime No.834 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 459, 380 and 302 I.P.C. In the course of investigation, he examined totally 292 persons on various dates from 24.11.2004 to 27.12.2004. On 27.12.2004, the petitioner interrogated one Ravi, S/o. Seevangam and Raghupathy, S/o. Raju, who had committed the murder. The first respondent, who is doing Milk Vending business, is a Police Station Bird, indulging and engaging himself in Katta Panchayats. The said Raghupathy (A.2) in the said case was employed by the first respondent in his milk vending business. The accused persons Ravi and Raghupathy used the motorcycle belonging to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent was called to Police Station and after interrogation, he was allowed to go out of the Police Station. The petitioner and two Police Head Constables did not take the first respondent to Thogamalai Police Station and did not torture him. The first respondent often used to come to Police Station to visit the accused persons and tried to influence the petitioner to release the accused persons. The petitioner refused to accede to the request of the first respondent. In view of the same, the first respondent has given a false complaint, after eight months from the date of alleged incident.

4. The second respondent took the complaint on file. The first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and his younger brother viz., Vairan @ Vaairaperumal was examined as P.W.2 and his brother's friend viz., S. Selvagandhi, Advocate, was examined as P.W.3. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed as stated in the complaint and supported the case of the first respondent. The first respondent also produced photographs showing the alleged injuries inflicted by the petitioner and others. The first respondent examined P.W.4 Doctor, who according to the first respondent, treated him after he was allowed to go from the Police Station. P.W.4, the Doctor deposed that the first respondent was his regular patient, but he was not coming to his hosp