A finding of human rights violation and the subsequent imposition of a fine must be supported by cogent and reliable material evidence; failure to consider contradictory medical and official records renders such an order unsustainable in law.

PRAYER :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in SHRC CaseNo.1876/2018 dated 02.01.2020 and consequent order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G1/4080/13/2020 bearing District Order No.1774/2020 dated 19.12.2020 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath For M/s. Spicy Law Firm

For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan (R1)

: Mr.I.Murugesan, Counsel for State (R4)

: Mr.L.Siva (R5)

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission in SHRC No. 1876 of 2018 dated 02.01.2020 and the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the fourth respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Ammapatti Police Station. While he was on duty, he registered a criminal case against the fifth respondent under the Mines and Minerals Act . Aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent made a complaint before the first respondent alleging that the petitioner and the Inspector of Police had attacked him prior to his remand in the police station. On accepting the allegation made by the fifth respondent as against the petitioner and the Inspector of Police, the first respondent imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-. However, the Inspector of Police was discharged. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent, before the first respondent, made a complaint alleging that on 08.01.2018, the fifth respondent/complainant and his relative, Mugar Agustina, were proceeding to a hospital in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-69-Y-8032 near Samiyar Colony and that the petitioner intercepted the vehicle, took the fifth respondent to the police station, tortured and assaulted him, thereby causing injuries to his left shoulder, back, left hand, left leg, thigh and stomach. Before the first respondent Human Rights Commission, on behalf of the fifth respondent, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. In order to disprove the same, the petitioner and the Inspector of Police examined themselves as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R8. After adjudication, the first respondent Human Rights Commission passed the present impugned order.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, as against the fifth respondent, seven cases have been registered. Out of the seven cases, the petitioner registered only one case, namely, Crime No.2 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 379, 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act . The other cases were registered by the very same police station, but by different officers and the respective crime numbers are Cr.No.31 of 2012, Cr.No.73 of 2014, Cr.No.56 of 2015, Cr.No.31 of 2016 and Cr.No.44 of 2017, including the case in Crime No.2 of 2018. All those crime numbers clearly establish that the fifth respondent is a habitual offender under the Mines and Minerals Act . Therefore, in order to wreak vengeance and divert the issue intentionally, the fifth respondent made a complaint before the first respondent, which is not sustainable.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the fifth respondent specifically made allegations as against the petitioner and the Inspector of Police, namely, Jasmine Vasantha Rani. However, during the enquiry before the first respondent, no specific allegation was made against the Inspector of Police. The petitioner registered only one case against the fifth respondent, whereas all the remaining cases were registered by the very same police station through different police officers.

Further, the fifth respondent al