The court upheld the State Human Rights Commission's findings of police misconduct, confirming the need for law enforcement to respect citizens' rights and the burden of proof on the accused to disprove allegations.

ORDER :

K .GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.7414 of 2017 dated 13.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent, directing the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to recover Rs.25,000/- from the writ petitioner and Rs.12,500/- each from the other respondents in the complaint.

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

The 4th respondent in this writ petition viz., V.Murugan approached the State Human Rights Commission alleging that, he lodged a complaint before Kulasekarapattinam Police Station for the alleged occurrence that took place on 07.07.2016 and the same was registered as CSR No.164 of 2016. While so, the respondents therein forced him to withdraw the said complaint. Thereafter, on 25.07.2017 at about 08.30 a.m, when he was returning from School and passing through Chidambaram Street, the Respondents intercepted the vehicle of the Complainant and assaulted him with lathi and thereafter took him to the Police Station and detained him in the lockup till 03.45 p.m. Thereafter, a false case in Crime.No.178 of 2017 was registered against him and he was produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. The Respondents threatened the Complainant not to disclose anything to the Magistrate about the harassment made by the Police. Thereafter, he was released on bail 18.08.2017. On 18.08.2017 the Complainant while returning to his village, the Respondents along with other policemen came in a TATA Sumo Car, intercepted his two wheeler and took a sum of Rs.1000/- from his pocket. The 1st Respondent slapped the complainant on his cheek and pushed him into the TATA Sumo Car. The other Respondents also assaulted him severely. Thereafter, he was thrown out from the car near Kulasekarapattinam bypass road. He then went along with his uncle to the Government Hospital at Madurai for treatment. He was admitted as in-patient till 21.08.2017. Hence, the complainant preferred a complaint before the Human Rights Commission for the alleged violation of Human Rights.

3. The defence of the respondents before the State Human Rights Commission is that the complainant is a Ganja seller and he was involved in Cr.No.178 of 2017 under Section 8(c) 20(b)(II)(A) of NDPS Act 1985 filed in Kulasekarapattinam Police Station. On the basis of the complaint lodged an enquiry was also conducted by one Mennakshinathan, the then Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station. Since a compromise was entered between the parties, the said complaint was closed.

4. On 25.07.2017 at about 10.00 a.m, when the 1st respondent was under prohibition raid in the Udangudi area along with other Respondents, the Complainant came in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN59-AQ-9896 in a speedy manner. The police team under suspicion intercepted his motorcycle and seized 1.100 Kilograms of Ganja containing 25 paper pockets from the tank cover of the motorcycle. A criminal case was registered against him. Thereafter, the complainant was produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and subjected him to judicial custody. The Complainant is a habitual offender of the said crime, selling the drugs in busy locality and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. There was no harassment or violation of Human Rights committed by the police team during the said enquiry. The said complaint was filed by him in order to escape from the clutches of law and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

(1) Whether the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant?

(2) What reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6. On the side of the complainant, the complainant/4th respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 12 documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P