The registration of an FIR by police officials in the discharge of their statutory duty does not amount to a human rights violation unless there is cogent evidence of mala fide intention or abuse of official position.

COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records with respect to the order dated 22.08.2022 in SHRC Case No. 5624 of 2019, on the file of 1st respondent commission and quash the same as null and void.

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Selvakamatchi (in both petitions)

For Respondents : Mr.F.Deepak (R1): Mr.G.Anto Prince (R2)

COMMON ORDER

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

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the common order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC No. 5624 of 2019 dated 22.08.2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are Inspector of Police and Special Sub-Inspector of Police and were working at the Kayathar Police Station. There was an election dispute in between the second respondent and other members. In connection with the said dispute, a complaint was received against the second respondent. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioners, along with the third and fourth respondents, registered a criminal case against the second respondent in Crime No.163 of 2019. Aggrieved by the registration of the said First Information Report, the second respondent preferred a complaint before the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission. The first respondent, after adjudication, passed the impugned order awarding compensation to the second respondent and directing the petitioners to pay the said compensation. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, being members of the law-enforcing agency, are duty-bound to register a case whenever a cognizable complaint is received. Mere registration of an FIR, by itself, cannot constitute a violation of human rights unless the complainant establishes that the registration of the criminal case was actuated by mala fides or resulted in any specific violation of his human rights. It is further submitted that the criminal case registered against the second respondent was subsequently closed on 10.07.2019, which would establish that the petitioners had acted in the discharge of their official duties and there is no material to establish any human-rights violation on their part. Hence, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, admittedly, there was an election dispute among the members of the CSI Church and the petitioners had no authority to interfere in the said internal dispute. It is alleged that, acting at the instance of the rival group and on receipt of illegal gratification, the petitioners registered a false case against the second respondent. According to the learned counsel, the registration of the false criminal case tarnished the reputation of the second respondent among the members of the CSI Church. Therefore, the second respondent approached the State Human Rights Commission and after considering the materials placed before it, the Commission passed the impugned order awarding compensation. Hence, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Commission.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The undisputed fact remains that, pursuant to a complaint received by the police, a criminal case was registered against the second respondent in Crime No.163 of 2019. The said case was subsequently closed on 10.07.2019. The mere fact that the criminal case was subsequently closed cannot, by itself, establish that the police officials had committed a violation of the human rights of the second respondent. The police, being the law-enforcing agency, are under a statutory obligation to act upon complaints received by them in accordance with