Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Prakash, Inspector of Police, Kolathur & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Fort St. George, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 28275 of 2018 & W.M.P.No. 32972 of 2018
Decided on : 11-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M. Gnanasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Sri Jayanthi, Spl.Govt. Pleader, K.V. Sajeev Kumar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing the complaint, suppression of material facts, and inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the complainant's allegations, and the police actions were justified to protect the complainant's family from potential retaliation.
Headnote:
Human Rights Violation - Police Action - Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Act, 1993 - Section 18 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the violation of human rights and the recommendations made by the State Human Rights Commission under the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Act, 1993, particularly focusing on the compensation and departmental action against the police officers involved.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged that the police forcibly removed the complainant and his mother-in-law from their house, locked the house, and made them stay at a relative's house. The complainant also alleged theft of cash and jewels from the house. The police officers denied the allegations and stated that they acted to protect the complainant's family from potential retaliation due to a murder case involving the complainant's son-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint, suppression of material facts, and inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the complainant's allegations. The court concluded that the police actions were justified and did not amount to a violation of human rights.
Issues: The main issues were the alleged forcible removal of the complainant from his house, the alleged theft of cash and jewels by the police, and the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint, suppression of material facts, and inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the complainant's allegations. The court also emphasized that the police actions were justified to protect the complainant's family from potential retaliation due to a murder case involving the complainant's son-in-law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the findings of the State Human Rights Commission and allowed the Writ Petition, concluding that the police actions did not amount to a violation of human rights.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Member, State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, in SHRC No.9566 of 2007, in which following recommendations have been made:
"a. The Government of Tamilnadu shall make a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) to the legal heirs of the Complainant Thiru.T.Janakiraman, Son of Thangavelu, No.12, M Block, Pensioners Lane, New Farhans Road, Chennai 600 012, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order towards compensation for violation of human rights of the complainant Thiru.T. Janakiraman committed by the respondents.
b. After making such payment, the Government of Tamil Nadu, may recover a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) from the 1st Respondent Thiru Murugesan, the then Inspector of Police, P.2, Otteri Police Sttion, Chennai Police on 14.04.2007, may recover a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the 2nd respondent, Thiru Prakash, the then Inspector of Police (Crime) P.2, Otteri Police, in February 2008, and a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from Thiru K. Vijayakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai Police, on 17.05.2007 and a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) from Thiru. Subramani, Sub-Inspector of Police,(Crime), P.2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai Police, on 17.05.2007 and
c. The Government of Tamil Nadu, may also initiate departmental action against the respondent Thiru Murugesan, the then Inspector of Police, P.2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai Police on 14.04.2007, Thiru Prakash, the then Inspector of Police (Crime) P.2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai Police, in the month of February 2008, Thiru K. Vijayakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai on 17.05.2007 and Thiru. Subramani, Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime) P.2, Otteri Police Station on 17.05.2007 for their lapses."
2. The brief facts leading to file this Writ Petition is as follows:
2(a) The Petitioners are working in the Police Department in various capacities. The Commission took cognizance of the complaint of one Mr.T. Janakiraman dated 03.12.2007 on 05.12.2007. The crux of the allegation in the above complaint is as follows:
2(a)(i) The complainant is the resident of Pensioners Lane, New Farhans Road, Otteri, Chennai 600012. He is residing with his family in the above address. On 14.04.2007 one Mr. Mahesh who is neighbour of the complainant in a drunken state quarreled with his son-in-law Mr. Kumar, thereafter fell down, which resulted in his death. On the said night the Respondents working in the Otteri Police Station were forcibly removed the complainant and his mother-in-law from their dwelling house by locking the same and made him to live at his relative's house at Vyasarpadi. It is further alleged that despite his repeated request to hand over the keys, the Respondents refused to give the same and stated that the keys will be given only after the murder case was over, which was registered against his son-in-law. The Complainant also learnt that police had entered his house twice. When he enquired the same with the police, they said that since there was leakage in the cooking gas, they opened the house and checked.
2(a)(ii) Thereafter, on the continuous request of the Complainant the house was opened in the presence of Respondents 1, 3 and 4 on 17.05.2007. On entering the house, he found three bureaus were broke opened and the other household articles were also broken and strewn. When the Complainant questioned about this with the Respondents, they threatened him. Thereafter he was taken to the Police Station and asked to give list of stolen articles. After lodging the complainant, he had visited the police station often without any result. Because of the theft he could not arrange for marriage of his daughters. Hence, he sought action against the respondent for their violation of human rights.
2.(b
