Reasons quashing SHRC order against police equally apply to co-respondent petitioner.

The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu in SHRC Case Nos. 6589 of 2015 and 6590 of 2015.

2. It is seen that the petitioner herein figured as the third respondent in the complaint filed before the Human Rights Commission. The Respondents 1 and 2 were the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively of Annavasal Police Station in Pudukkottai District. All the three respondents in the complaint before the Human Rights Commission had challenged the impugned order. Unfortunately, this writ petition was not clubbed with W.P.(MD)No.4587 of 2023 filed by the police personnel. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court vide order dated 02.12.2024 had set aside the impugned order passed by the Human Rights Commission. While allowing the writ petition filed by the police personnel, the Division Bench was under the erroneous impression that this petitioner had not challenged the order of the Human Rights Commission and that is why, an observation was made that the fine imposed on the petitioner herein can be collected from him since he had not challenged the order of the Human Rights Commission. In fact, it was the petitioner who had challenged the impugned order first and the police personnel had only subsequently challenged the Human Rights Commission's order.

3. We had carefully gone through the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. We are of the view that the reasons that impelled this court to quash the Human Rights Commission's order at the instance of the police personnel can equally be applied in the case of the petitioner also. Though the complainant before the Human Rights Commission had entered appearance through counsel, there is no representation on his behalf. The impugned order stands quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.