Dismissed

Seetharaman v. The State Human Rights

Madras HC16 Nov 2022WP/11380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of certiorari to quash the state human rights commission order imposing a Rs.25,000 penalty on police officers. The Court held that CCTV footage established the officers visited the complainant's house to threaten his father-in-law during a property dispute, and thus interfered with the commission's mild punishment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no costs awarded.

Seetharaman Vs The State Human Rights — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.Nos.13871 & 13872 of 2020

¶10

1.Seetharaman

2.C.Panneerselvam

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu, Thiruvarangam, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, (Greenways Road), Chennai – 600 028.

¶15

2.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶16

3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

4.The Special Secretary to Government, Public (HR) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

5.S.Rajpadmanaban

..Respondents

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent herein in its proceedings SHRC Case No.9686 of 2017, order dated 31.12.2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurali For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar

¶25

Special Government Pleader for R1

¶26

Mr.A.Selvendiran

¶27

Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4 R5 – Served – No Appearance

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶30

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the State Human

¶31

Rights Commission, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- to be shared equally.

¶32

The 5^th respondent lodged a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.9676 of 2017, complaining that the petitioners herein, the then Sub-Inspector of Police (Grade-I) and Head Constable at the Madipakkam Police Station had visited his house at12 midnight along with the brother of his father-in-law, with whom there was a property dispute, and threatened the inhabitants.

¶33

2/7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶36

2.The complainant / 5th respondent herein would claim that his father-in-law along with his nephew, Balaji has gone to the House of his elder brother Pudukkan to discuss certain property issues. Since the fatherin-law of the complainant was assaulted at the house of the said Pudukkan, the complainant had taken his father-in-law to the Chrompet Government General Hospital. On the same day around mid night i.e., on 27.07.2017. The petitioners herein along with the said Pudukkan and his family members visited the house of the complainant and threatened the inhabitants.

¶37

3.Complainant also came to know that a First Information Report

¶38

registered against him in Crime No.927 of 2017 at the instance of the said Pudukkan. Therefore, the complainant had approached this Court and obtained Anticipatory Bail. It is further alleged that the 2^nd respondent sought for a bribe of Rs.6,000/- and threatened that action will be initiated under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., if he fails to pay the said sum of Rs.6,000/-. These actions on the part of the petitioners, who are Police Officers, according to the complainant, amounted to violation of human rights. The

¶39

3/7

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶42

petitioners resisted the complaint contending that they never went to to the house of the complainant at any time. Since there were some disputes between Pudukkan and the complainant's father-in-law, at the instance of the said Pudukkan a First Information Report was registered.

¶43

Though the complainant and others obtained Anticipatory bail,

¶44

they did not comply with the conditions. Therefore, the 2^nd petitioner herein went to the shop of the complainant to advise him to seek modification of the Anticipatory Bail order to avoid arrest. Before the Commission, the complainant had produced the CCTV footage from the camera that was available in front of his house. The Commission had concluded that the CCTV footage shows that the petitioners herein along with the family members of Pudukkan had infact, gone to the house of the complainant at 12 mid night on 27.07.2017 and at 6 a.m on 28.07.2017.

¶45

5.Admittedly, there was no First Information Report against the

¶46

complainant or his father-in-law on 27.07.2017. No arrest warrant was obtained. The contention of the petitioners that they never went to the house

¶47

4/7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶50

of the complainant is falsified by the CCTV footage that was produced before the Commission. The offences, for which, the First Information Report has been registered are all bailable offences except the usual section that is added in all First Information Reports namely, 506(ii).

¶51

6.We are therefore, convinced that there was a brazen attempt on

¶52

the part of the Police Officers namely, the petitioners herein to threaten the complainant and his father-in-law and to bring them to terms in the dispute with the said Pudukkan. It should be noted that the petitioners had not chosen to let in any evidence before the Commission. We therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Human Rights Commission, which, we feel in the circumstances, had imposed a very mild punishment.

¶53

7.This Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 16.11.2022

¶55

kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶56

5/7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶59

To:-

¶60

1.The State Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu, Thiruvarangam, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, (Greenways Road), Chennai – 600 028.

¶61

2.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶62

3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶63

4.The Special Secretary to Government, Public (HR) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶64

6/7

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.11380 of 2020

¶67

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶68

KKN

¶69

W.P.No.11380 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.13871 & 13872 of 2020

¶70

16.11.2022

¶71

7/7

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Seetharaman v. The State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetharaman v. The State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu Airport Workers Union Vs E.Deivasagayam

Church Of South India Trust Association Vs The District Revenue Officer

The Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs R.Rajaram

Meenakokila Vs the commissioner

M.Karthikeyan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Anand Pai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu