Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights ... on 8 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
2024:MHC:3127
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2011
Murugan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4477 of 2011
R.Anbazhagan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4478 of 2011
M.Santhanakrishnan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4479 of 2011
vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai-600 014.
2. R.Ramalingam ... Respondents in all Writ Petitions
Prayer in all Writ Petitions : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
first Respondent in S.H.R.C.5616/2003 dated 24.01.2011 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karunanithi
For R1 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order of the State Human
Rights Commission made on a complaint by the 2nd respondent in all these writ
petitions against the petitioners who are police officials.
2. The complainant/2ndrespondent claimed that he was intercepted by
the police party about 500 meters from the Thanjavur East Police Station. He
was verbally abused and dragged inside the police station. He was beaten up
and forced to undress and made to sit half-naked in the police station. It is also
claimed that certain valuables belonging to him were taken away by the police
personnel. It is stated that the cousin of the complainant came to the police
station the next day morning, but he was not allowed to meet and speak to the
complainant. Later, the complainant was remanded to judicial custody. After
obtaining bail, almost after a year, the complaint was lodged before the State
Human Rights Commission.
3. The claim was resisted by the petitioners herein, contending that
upon a complaint given by one Sahaya Arulraj, a case under Sections 465 and
468 of IPC was registered against the complainant and one Chinnaiyan. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
complainant was arrested on 02.08.2003. The said Chinnaiyan had implicated
the complainant namely, Ramalingam. Therefore, the said Ramalingam was
picked up for investigation from Vandikara Street, Thanjavur. A confession
statement was also given by him. A motor cycle belonging to him and fake
rubber stamps and round seal and stamp-pad were seized from him. He was
produced before the Judicial Magistrate and he was remanded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate. Even at the time of remand, the complainant did not
whisper anything about the ill-treatment. A case was also registered.
Simultaneously, a complaint was also made by the complainant before the
Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur, as Human Rights Case No.2 of 2006. The
said Human Rights Case No.2 of 2006 came to be disposed of on 16.04.2008,
concluding that the claim of the complainant has not been proved beyond
doubt. The accused/petitioners in these writ petitions were acquitted of the
charges. The State Human Rights Commission, however, found the
petitioners/police officials liable for payment of damages.
4. We have heard Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State
Human Rights Commission. Despite service, the 2nd respondent namely, the
complainant is not appearing either in person or through counsel duly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
instructed.
5. Mr.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would, while conceding that the conclusions of the criminal court are not
binding on the State Human Rights Commission, contend that the judgment of
the Criminal Court is at least entitled to evidentiary value and despite the fact
that the judgment was produced before the Human Rights Commission, the
State Human Rights Commission has not even referred to it. He would also
point out that the complaint itself was filed one year after release on bail and
even at the time of remand, the complainant has not spoken anything about the
ill-treatment before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
6. We have gone through the order of the 1st respondent and we find
that the State Human Rights Commission has gone by the ocular evidence of
PW2 and the wound certificate that was issued. Once the Criminal Court upon
evidence has concluded that there was no ill-treatment, we do not think we
could sustain the conclusions of the State Human Rights Commission which is
only a supervisory body and its orders are only recommendatory in nature.
7. Therefore, the Writ Petitions stand allowed. The order of the State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C.No.5616/2003, dated 24.01.2011, is set
aside. No costs.
(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.)
08.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission,
Chennai-600 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
bala
COMMON ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)Nos.4477 to 4479 of 2011
DATED : 08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
