Police justified in delay of FIR registration due to civil nature of dispute, complaints against them found unsubstantiated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.Nos.34561 of 2022 & 583 of 2023 &

W.M.P.Nos.33991 of 2022 & 540 of 2023 Jayamohan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.34561 of 2022 R.Sindhunadhi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.583 of 2023 Vs.

1. State Human Rights Commission Rep. by its Registrar No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai - 600 028

2. R.Venkataraman ... Respondents in both Writ Petitions Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the proceedings in SHRC Nos.8566 and 8942 of 2017 dated 26.09.2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz in W.P.No.34561 of 2022 Mr.V.Janarthanan in W.P.No.583 of 2023 For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 No appearance for R2 COMMON ORDER [Order of the Court was made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR.J,]

The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge a common order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in SHRC Nos. 8566 and 8942 of 2017. As the issues raised in both the writ petitions arise from the same order of the Commission and involve common questions of fact and law, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The private respondent, R. Venkataraman (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), a senior citizen, filed two complaints before the Commission in SHRC Nos. 8566 and 8942 of 2017. In both complaints, the complainant alleged that three articles were stolen from his land and that the jurisdictional police failed to take appropriate action despite several representations.

3. The office file of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, discloses that the complaint was taken up for enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Thiruvidaimaruthur, on 29.06.2016, during which time the then Inspector of Police, Mr. Jeyamohan (petitioner in W.P. No. 34561 of 2022), enquired into C.S.R. No. 486 of 2015. It was noted that after obtaining a legal opinion from the Government Advocate, further action would follow. The case file was then forwarded to the Pandanallur Police Station.

4. The complainant alleged that despite repeated representations to the said Inspector and his successor in office, no tangible action was taken. It was further alleged that Tmt. Bagavathi Saraman, Inspector of Police and third respondent before the Commission, made an attempt to induce the complainant to withdraw the complaint for monetary consideration. It was also alleged that she assured registration of an FIR and issuance of a copy but failed to follow through.

5.Upon receiving no response, he approached the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., seeking direction to register a case for offences under Sections 307 , 370, 379, and 456 IPC . Pursuant to the said petition, the Judicial Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR against the alleged accused persons.

6. Subsequently, with an inordinate delay, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 228 of 2017, but no recovery of the alleged stolen articles (metal boards) was effected, leading the complainant to file the complaints before the Commission. The police officers/respondents appeared before the Commission and denied all allegations. The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P32. The police officers examined themselves as RW1 to RW3 and marked Exhibits R1 to R12 and R1 to R11, respectively.

7. Afte