Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 33322
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice S.S. SUNDAR
V.Adhimoolam – Appellant
Versus
The Member – Respondent
['WP.Nos.27969/2018 & 34501/2019', 'WP.No.27969/2018', 'WP.No.34501/2019']
Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior counsel for Mr.Manoharan Sundaram
For R1 in WP.No.27969/18 & R2 in WP.No.34501/19: Mr.S.Wilson
For R1 in WP.No.34501/19: Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, Spl.GP
For R2 in WP.No.27969/18 & R3 in WP.No.34501/19 : Mr.A.John Britto
Dismissal of application to reopen the case for further evidence on the side of the respondents before the State Human Rights Commission, and the court's decision to uphold findings of human rights violations and recommendations for compensation and disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Human Rights - State Human Rights Commission - Dismissal of Application to Reopen Case - The court dismissed the application to reopen the case for further evidence on the side of the respondents before the Commission, upholding the State Human Rights Commission's findings of human rights violations and the recommendations for compensation and disciplinary proceedings, but setting aside the recommendation for criminal prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to reopen the case for further evidence on the side of the respondents before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) after the complaint of human rights violations was dismissed by SHRC. The complaint involved allegations of illegal custody, torture, and coercion by the police against the complainant and his son.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no irregularity or illegality in the SHRC's dismissal of the application to reopen the case, upholding the findings of human rights violations and the recommendations for compensation and disciplinary proceedings. However, the court set aside the recommendation for criminal prosecution due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the huge delay.
Issues: Dismissal of Application to Reopen Case, Allegations of Human Rights Violations, Recommendations of State Human Rights Commission, Delay in Filing Application
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the SHRC's findings of human rights violations and the recommendations for compensation and disciplinary proceedings, but set aside the recommendation for criminal prosecution due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the huge delay.
Final Decision: WP.No.27969/2018 stands dismissed. WP.No.34501/2019 stands partly allowed as indicated above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
COMMON ORDER
S.S.SUNDAR, J., (1)Since the issue arises for consideration in both the writ petitions are connected and parties to the writ petitions are same, both petitions are disposed of by this common order.
(2)The Court heard the submissions of Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions ; Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State ; Mr.S.Wilson, learned counsel appearing for the State Human Rights Commission and Mr.A.John Britto, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.
(3)The petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018 is the 1st respondent in SHRC Case No.1757/2012. When the complaint was pending before the State Human Rights Commission [SHRC], the petitioner filed a petition to reopen the case for the respondent's evidence. The said petition was dismissed by SHRC on 25.07.2018 after holding that the petition is filed to drag on the proceedings and that the application filed nearly two and half years after the evidence was closed, lacks bona fides.
(4)As against the order dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018, to reopen the case for respondent's evidence, WP.No.27969/2018 is filed.
(5)The Tribunal passed the final order on 21.01.2019 in SHRC Case No.1757/2012 with the following recommendations:-
i. The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Only] to the complainant Thiru.G.Ravi, S/o.Ganesan, P.No.2/1005, New No.1375, Pandian Street, Akash Nagar, Gerugambakkm, Chennai 600 122 and Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant's son Sripakkiyan within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.1,00,000/- each from respondents 1 to 4. The complaint against the 5th respondent is dismissed.
ii. This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the respondents No.1 to 4 as per the Rules.
iii.This Commission further recommends to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondents No.1 to 4.
(6)Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in WP.No.27969/2018 along with respondents 2 to 4 before the State Human Rights Commission, has filed WP.No.34501/2019.
(7)Brief facts of the case that led to the filing of the above two writ petitions are as follows:-
(8)The 2nd respondent in WP.No.27969/2018, namely, Mr.G.Ravi, is the 3rd respondent in WP.No.34501/2019 and hereinafter, he shall be referred to as 'the complainant'. Petitioners 1 to 4 in WP.No.34501/2019 are hereinafter referred to, either as respondents 1 to 4 before the Commission or petitioners 1 to 4.
(9)The 1st petitioner is the Inspector of Police. The complainant was working as Manager in Saravana Bhavan Hotel in George Town, Chennai. His wife by name Ambiga was a whistle-blower having made several publications about the fraudulent irregularities in Kanchipuram Central Cooperative Bank at Porur. The wife of the complainant Smt.Ambiga was stated to be murdered by two identifiable persons in police uniform on 24.01.2012 at 2.00 a.m. The complainant's son is an eyewitness and he lodged a complaint which was registered in Crime No.64/2012 by Mangadu Police Station. The case of the complainant is that he along with his son were taken to Mangadu Police Station on 24.01.2012 at 6.00 a.m. and they were enquired. Again, on 25.01.2012, at about 11.45 p.m., the police took the complainant and his son to Police Station for enquiry and the complainant was detained along with his son. It is the further case of the complainant that they were under illegal custody from 25.01.2012 and were compelled to give a confession admitting the murder of his wife and in that context, they were continuously tortured. After the illegal custody of the complainant and his son from 25.01.2012 in the Police Station and after the brutal attack, the complainant's son was released on 31.01.2012 and however, the complainant was released only on 07.02.2012.
(10)The complain
