The court emphasized that allegations of human rights violations require substantial evidence, and procedural lapses alone do not constitute violations.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.03.2020 made in SHRC Case No.9024/2018 passed by the seventh respondent/State Human Rights Commission with a prayer to quash the same.

2. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he had preferred a complaint on 12.06.2018 against one Pouliya [who is not a party to SHRC proceedings] and others for spraying chilli powder and snatching his two mobile phones and all his belongings. The complaint preferred by him in Pappanadu Police Station was cognizable in nature. However, neither a case was registered nor CSR was issued based on the complaint preferred by him.

(a) According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent/Head Constable of Pappanadu Police Station, is a relative of Ms.Pouliya and he seems to be a very influential person. He pressurized the Writ Petitioner to withdraw the complaint against the said Pouliya. The Writ Petitioner had made a complaint to the higher officials and Chief Minister's Special Cell. There was no response. The Writ Petitioner contends that though he had preferred a complaint on 12.06.2018, the Pappanadu Police have not chosen to register FIR immediately after he filed a complaint, for the reasons best known to them.

(b) According to the Writ Petitioner, he got a RTI reply with regard to the action taken on his complaint dated 12.06.2018 and came to know that two of his cell phones were in custody of the said Pouliya. There is a counter complaint given by Ms.Pouliya as against the Writ Petitioner in Pappanadu Police Station. To avoid embarrassing situation, Pappanadu Police had registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2018 on the basis of complaint given by him as against the said Pouliya and others on 24.07.2018 for offences under Sections 147, 342, 352, 506(i) r/w 379 of IPC and on the basis of the complaint given by Ms.Pouliya, a counter case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.82 of 2018 on 24.07.2018 for offence under Section 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act.

(c) On 15.08.2018 at about 3.00 A.M., the said respondents 2 to 6 attached to Pappanadu Police Station and St.Thomas Mount Police Station along with one Suresh Head Constable barged into the house of the petitioner to attack and abuse him in the presence of his room-mate Mr.Durairaj.

(d) The first contention of the Writ Petitioner is that the respondents took him in a car to St. Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai and he was made to wait outside the Police Station and arranged another car in which he was taken to Pappanadu Police Station. The Writ Petitioner specifically contends that he was not informed about the reason for arrest. There is a violation of guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416.

(e) The Writ Petitioner contends that his arrest was not intimated to his blood relatives and he was treated like a hardcore criminal. The Writ Petitioner was produced before the incharge Magistrate at Pappanasam for the case registered against him, who had remanded him to judicial custody. The Writ Petitioner further contends that he had narrated the sequence of events before the Magistrate at the time of remand. However, the learned Magistrate did not record the same and advised the petitioner to inform the same before the regular Magistrate at the time of his bail application.

(f) The Writ Petitioner contends that during his confinement in Sub Jail, Pattukottai, one person by name Solomon came to see the Writ Petitioner. The said Solomon was a suspended Prison Constable who had threatened the Writ Petitioner with dire consequences that if he failed to settle the amount which was payable to one Radhakrishnan, who is a Real Estate Broker, he will do away with his life.

(g) The Writ Petitioner contends that the said Radhakrishnan had given some money to a person in Karur towards purchase of land and those persons neither conveyed the land nor returned the money. The s