A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani and Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha opined that not every casual enquiry by the police can be held as ‘human rights violation’. The public needs to be sensitized otherwise this would act as a demoralizing factor for the police force at large. By drawing a line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry, the judges quashed the order of the Human Rights Commission, Chennai.
Brief Facts:
The complainant, G. Ramesh, was running a manufacturing unit of silver craft in Chennai. He had business transaction with Krishnamoorthy and Sumuthi Challani doing the same kind of businesses. It was alleged that Krishnamoorthy owed some amount to G. Ramesh and upon being asked, Krishnamoorthy said that he had given the same to Sumuthi. The three had several transactions which included transfer of land and also other movable properties. The complainant moved to the police to extract the said amount from Sumuthi but of no avail. The complainant had alleged that he was taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police i.e., the petitioner where a "Katta Panchayath" was conducted and, when the complainant was again made to appear in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, an undertaking letter was forcibly taken from him. Thereafter, the original document and RC book of his Mercedes Benz Car was taken by the petitioner and subsequently, the complainant realised that the petitioner in collusion with Sumithi and others had deceived him. Therefore, he was constrained to file a complaint in SHRC 852/2019 before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, against the petitioner. The State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, held that the petitioner as a senior police official had violated the Human Rights of the complainant and therefore the complainant was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and also recommended for departmental action against the petitioner. Aggrieved over this order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, the present petition was filed to quash the same by issuance of Writ of Certiorari.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner was one of the few meritorious officers in the State Police Force having won police medals, cash award and medal from the Central Government for his commendable service. It was also contended that the petitioner had never indulged in any katta panchayath as claimed by the complainant and that he had summoned the complainant for enquiry only on the basis of a complaint dated 17.09.2018 against Ramesh by the said Sumithi Challani addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone. In the said complaint, he had alleged that the complainant Ramesh had threatened to kill him if he fails to settle the amount due to the latter. It was further contended that the petitioner being a senior police officer was aware that civil matters have to be adjudicated legally only in the Court of law and that he was in no manner involved to settle the money dispute between the parties. All the allegations made against the petitioner were unfounded and baseless and therefore, the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, is liable to be quashed.
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani and Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha opined that not every casual enquiry by the police can be held as ‘human rights violation’. The public needs to be sensitized otherwise this would act as a demoralizing factor for the police force at large. By drawing a line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry, the judges quashed the order of the Human Rights Commission, Chennai.
Brief Facts:
The complainant, G. Ramesh, was running a manufacturing unit of silver craft in Chennai. He had business transaction with Krishnamoorthy and Sumuthi Challani doing the same kind of businesses. It was alleged that Krishnamoorthy owed some amount to G. Ramesh and upon being asked, Krishnamoorthy said that he had given the same to Sumuthi. The three had several transactions which included transfer of land and also other movable properties. The complainant moved to the police to extract the said amount from Sumuthi but of no avail. The complainant had alleged that he was taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police i.e., the petitioner where a "Katta Panchayath" was conducted and, when the complainant was again made to appear in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, an undertaking letter was forcibly taken from him. Thereafter, the original document and RC book of his Mercedes Benz Car was taken by the petitioner and subsequently, the complainant realised that the petitioner in collusion with Sumithi and others had deceived him. Therefore, he was constrained to file a complaint in SHRC 852/2019 before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, against the petitioner. The State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, held that the petitioner as a senior police official had violated the Human Rights of the complainant and therefore the complainant was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and also recommended for departmental action against the petitioner. Aggrieved over this order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, the present petition was filed to quash the same by issuance of Writ of Certiorari.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner was one of the few meritorious officers in the State Police Force having won police medals, cash award and medal from the Central Government for his commendable service. It was also contended that the petitioner had never indulged in any katta panchayath as claimed by the complainant and that he had summoned the complainant for enquiry only on the basis of a complaint dated 17.09.2018 against Ramesh by the said Sumithi Challani addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone. In the said complaint, he had alleged that the complainant Ramesh had threatened to kill him if he fails to settle the amount due to the latter. It was further contended that the petitioner being a senior police officer was aware that civil matters have to be adjudicated legally only in the Court of law and that he was in no manner involved to settle the money dispute between the parties. All the allegations made against the petitioner were unfounded and baseless and therefore, the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, is liable to be quashed.violated his human rights.
Observations of the Court:
The court held that in deciding 'human rights violation' there needs to be conclusive proof. There is a very thin line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry. The court observed that the complainant had the habit of landing himself into financial problems on his own volition by lending money and has been approaching police since 2017 on several occasions. The series of transactions reproduced from his complaint proved the hasty and irrational decisions by the complainant. He also had the habit of approaching different police stations with different advocates and also insisting on registering FIRs.
It was clear from the contents of the report of the Deputy Commissioner that the complainant was not a victim of human rights violation. He was neither detained illegally nor subjected to any mental harassment or torture. He, even otherwise, had the habit of going to police stations with such complaints. It was also evident from the contents of his own complaint that his debtors never disputed the amount due or refused to repay the loans. It was inferred as to who would have threatened whom and whether the complaint dated 17.09.2018 by Sumithi Challani against Ramesh was true. The court acknowledged that the public visits police stations even for trivial issues of civil nature and at times truce is arrived at the stations. Therefore, without any allegations of harassment or threat by the police, such conclusions regarding human rights violations as concluded by the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, would put the entire police force on defence mode. The petitioner was not accused of any coercive method. The complainant's grievances were resolved ultimately. He was only the creditor and the amounts due to him were settled. In such circumstances, the court decided that the decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and Ors, (2014) 2 SCC 1 may not apply to the facts of the present case. This does not mean that there are no instances of human rights violations in police stations. There are instances but, as per the court, every instance of a casual police inquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation.
Decision of the Court:
The Writ Petition was allowed and consequently, the orders dated 11.06.2021, of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, in SHRC Case No.852/2019, were quashed as prayed for. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: Lakshmanan vs The Secretary and others
Coram: Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani and Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha
Case No.: W.P. No. 17619 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 18752 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Selvam
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S. Wilson (For R1); Ms. R.L. Karthika (For R1-R5); Mr. G. Murugeshkumar (For R6)
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments