IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reopen a case for further evidence, the assessment of the bona fides of such applications, and the interpretation of provisions of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 in determining human rights violations and appropriate recommendations.

ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order of dismissal dated 25.07.2018 passed in SHRC.No.1757/2012 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same.) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the recommendation dated 21.01.2019 in SHRC.No.1757/2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.)

1. Since the issue arises for consideration in both the writ petitions are connected and parties to the writ petitions are same, both petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The Court heard the submissions of Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions ; Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State ; Mr.S.Wilson, learned counsel appearing for the State Human Rights Commission and Mr.A.John Britto, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018 is the 1st respondent in SHRC Case No.1757/2012. When the complaint was pending before the State Human Rights Commission [SHRC], the petitioner filed a petition to reopen the case for the respondent's evidence. The said petition was dismissed by SHRC on 25.07.2018 after holding that the petition is filed to drag on the proceedings and that the application filed nearly two and half years after the evidence was closed, lacks bona fides.

4. As against the order dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018, to reopen the case for respondent's evidence, WP.No.27969/2018 is filed.

5. The Tribunal passed the final order on 21.01.2019 in SHRC Case No.1757/2012 with the following recommendations:-

i. The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Only] to the complainant Thiru.G.Ravi, S/o.Ganesan, P.No.2/1005, New No.1375, Pandian Street, Akash Nagar, Gerugambakkm, Chennai 600 122 and Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant's son Sripakkiyan within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.1,00,000/- each from respondents 1 to 4. The complaint against the 5th respondent is dismissed.

ii. This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the respondents No.1 to 4 as per the Rules.

iii. This Commission further recommends to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondents No.1 to 4.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018 along with respondents 2 to 4 before the State Human Rights Commission, has filed WP.No.34501/2019.

7. Brief facts of the case that led to the filing of the above two writ petitions are as follows:-

8. The 2nd respondent in WP.No.27969/2018, namely, Mr.G.Ravi, is the 3rd respondent in WP.No.34501/2019 and hereinafter, he shall be referred to as 'the complainant'. Petitioners 1 to 4 in WP.No.34501/2019 are hereinafter referred to, either as respondents 1 to 4 before the Commission or petitioners 1 to 4.

9. The 1st petitioner is the Inspector of Police. The complainant was working as Manager in Saravana Bhavan Hotel in George Town, Chennai. His wife by name Ambiga was a whistle-blower having made several publications about the fraudulent irregularities in Kanchipuram Central Cooperative Bank at Porur. The wife of the complainant Smt.Ambiga was stated to be murdered by two identifiable persons in police uniform on 24.01.2012 at 2.00 a.m. The complainant's son is an eyewitness and he lodged a complaint which was registered in Crime No.64/2012 by Mangadu Police Station. The case of the complainant is that he along with his son were taken to Mangadu Police Station on 24.01.2012 at 6.00 a.m. and they were enquired. Again, on 25.01.2012, at about 11.45 p.m., the police took the complainant and his son to Police Station for enquiry and the co