The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence supporting the violation of human rights and the proper closure of complaints after due enquiry.

ORDER :

(R. Hemalatha, J.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent in S.H.R.C. No.5002 of 2019 dated 13.01.2022 and to quash the same.)

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in S.H.R.C. No.5002 of 2019 dated 13.01.2022 and to quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant are as follows:

i. The 2nd respondent/complainant owns agricultural lands in Survey Nos.17/3, 17/4, 17/5 and 17/6 of Kallipalayam Village and on account of a civil dispute with his neighbour Anbumani, he filed a suit in O.S. No.1/2019 against the said Anbumani and others before the District Munsif, Paramathy, and also obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the latter from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

ii. According to the 2nd respondent/complainant, on 11.05.2019, when he was ploughing his land, the said Anbumani and one Pappayee prevented him from doing so and also abused him in filthy language apart from threatening him with dire consequences. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with Senthil Kumar (writ petitioner herein), Inspector of Police, Paramathy Police Station, on 13.05.2019. However, the Inspector of Police did not take action against Anbumani and on the other hand summoned the 2nd respondent/complainant to the police station on 14.05.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. and ill-treated him. Hence he filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, (which was numbered as SHRC No.5002 of 2019), praying to take suitable action against the writ petitioner for not taking proper action on his complaint.

iii. The present writ petitioner filed a counter contending that on 13.05.2019 he was not available in the police station, and that the complaint was lodged with the Sub Inspector of Police and that on 14.05.2019, at about 12.00 noon, he took up the complaint for enquiry and the 2nd respondent/complainant and Anbumani were present in the police station. He requested the 2nd respondent/complainant to give a statement in support of his complaint, but, he refused to do so. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also conducted an enquiry with regard to the allegations made by the 2nd respondent/complainant and subsequently the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent/complainant was closed on merits. Hence, there was no violation of human rights.

iv. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, after analying the evidence on record, vide its orders dated 13.01.2022 in SHRC No.5002 of 2019, held that the present petitioner had violated the human rights of the 2nd respondent/complainant by not taking action on the complaint of the 2nd respondent and made the following recommendations to the Government.

The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the complainant Thiru C. Periasamy within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this recommendation and recover the same from the respondent subsequently as per the rules and regulations.

v. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Ms. Kritika Kamal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Gurunathan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. M. Marimuthu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

4. Ms. Kritika Kamal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission is totally perverse since the State Human Rights Commission had come to the conclusion that there is a violation of human rights merely because the present writ petitioner did not register either CSR or FIR on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/complainant and that on the basis of the complaint given by Anbumani, a charge sheet was filed again