Police officials must adhere to lawful procedures in arrest and detention; failure to do so constitutes a violation of human rights.

ORDER :

K .GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.6720 of 2017 dated 28.08.2019 passed by the 1st respondent herein, directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/2nd respondent and recover the said amount from each respondents therein.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

a. The second respondent in this writ petition viz., Thiru. Syed Abutagir approached the State Human Rights Commission alleging that he is an Auto driver and his wife is a differently abled person. While so, on 01.08.2017 at about 6.p.m after dropping the School students in their houses and while returning back to the Auto stand, the respondents and other unknown persons intercepted him and took him to the Kenikarai Police Station.

b. His further allegation in the complaint is that, in the police station he was forced to remove his clothes and was subjected to harassment by the respondents/Police Officials therein. On the next day, he was taken to Pattinampakkam and Sakkarakottai check post and other places by the respondents/Police Officials and was threatened to admit that he had concealed the crime weapons and was also threatened with foisting of false cases against his family members. Thereafter, the respondents foisted a false case against him and was illegally detained for four days in the Police lock up. Considering his illegal detention the judicial Magistrate refused to remand him and released him on bail. Alleging as above, the complainant/2nd respondent approached the Human Rights Commission and prayed for suitable action against the respondents Police Officials for violation of Human Rights.

3. The respondents / Police Officials filed their counter affidavits denying all the allegations contained in the complaint lodged by the complainant/2nd respondent. In the counter affidavits it is stated that the 1st respondent/ 1st writ petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Serious Crime Branch, attached to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District; that no such occurrence took place on 01.08.2017 as alleged in the complaint; that the complainant/2nd respondent was never kept in illegal detention for four days and never subjected to torture by the respondents/ Police Officials; that they have not violated any of the Human Rights of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Human Rights Commission framed the following points for consideration:

'' Whether the respondents had violated any of the Human Rights of the Complainant; and

2. What reliefs the complainant is entitled to? ''

5. Before the Commission, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 on his side. On the side of the respondents/ Police Officials R.W.1 to R.W.4 were examined and four documents were marked on their side.

6. The above points for consideration were determined against the respondents/ Police Officials and the Commission passed the following recommendations:

(i) The Government of Tamilnadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant/P.W.1 Thiru. Syed Abutagir, son of Kaja Muhideen, No.8 Basi Vanakara Street, Vellipattinam, Ramanathapuram District within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order; and

(ii) The Government shall recover the said sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the respondents equally, subsequently as per the rules and regulations.

7. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is preferred by the respondents/ Police Officials.

8. Heard Mr.M.Lourdu Savio, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent.

9. Despite notice, the 2nd respondent did not appear before this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that no such occurrence t