Allegations of human rights violations must be substantiated by evidence; mere claims without corroboration do not establish a violation.

ORDER :

K .GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C case No.7861/2013.

2. The writ petitioner is a police official and respondent in the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent before the State Human Rights Commission, i.e., the 1st respondent herein. The State Human Rights Commission held that the 2nd respondent was subjected to Human rights violation by the writ petitioner without following the procedure laid down in law and passed the impugned order stating that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only ) from the writ petitioner as compensation and recommended the Government to pay the said amount and to recover the same from the writ petitioner. The SHRC also recommended to initiate disciplinary action against the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of SHRC in S.H.R.C case No.7861/2013 dated 14.05.2018.

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The Writ Petitioner while working as Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai, the 2nd respondent's wife lodged a complaint on 26.08.2013 against her husband (2nd respondent herein) and his family members for harassing and giving life threat to her. After enquiry, the said complaint was taken on file vide C.S.R No.264/2013 and thereafter summons were issued to the 2nd respondent and his family members to appear before the petitioner for preliminary enquiry on 30.09.2013. On enquiry, prima facie case was made out and therefore, the petitioner registered the FIR. As counter blast, the 2nd respondent/complainant lodged a complaint before SHRC alleging that he was subjected to human rights violation by the writ petitioner at the time of the said enquiry.

4. Mr.P.Arumugavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after receipt of summons the 2nd respondent and his family members appeared before the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner treated them with due respect and dignity. But the 2nd respondent and his family members threatened him to close the complaint. The petitioner did not heed to their threat and conducted the enquiry in a fair manner. Since prima facie an offence was made out from the complaint, the petitioner registered the First Information Report on 25.10.2013 in Cr.No.8/2013, on the file of All Women Police Station, Ambattur under sections 498A and 506(i) of I.P.C against the 2nd respondent and his family members. As a counter blast, on the very same day i.e., on 25.10.2013 vide S.H.R.C No. 7861/2013 the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission i.e., the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and the impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of facts.

5. His further contention is that the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent is very vague and subsequently the 2nd respondent and his wife got divorced and are living separately. Whereas, for no fault of the petitioner, she was imposed with the punishment by SHRC, the 1st respondent herein.

6. The petitioner's counsel also submits that a criminal case was registered in Cr.No. 8 of 2013, on the file of All Women Police Station, Ambattur, under sections 498A and 506(i) of I.P.C against the 2nd respondent for threatening his wife and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.167 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amabttur. The 1st respondent failed to take note of the above facts and passed the impugned order merely based on the vague and false statement of the 2nd respondent. The writ petitioner was punished for doing her lawful duty. The said complaint was only an afterthought in order to wreck vengeance against the writ petitioner for register