Dismissed

D.Sundarsingh, v. Tamil Nadu State Human

Madras HC25 Apr 2024WP/4104/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the State Human Rights Commission's order in State SHRC No.1634 of 2015. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim to quash the recommendation holding him liable for assault on an arrestee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed with no costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

D.Sundarsingh, Vs Tamil Nadu State Human — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.4104 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.5024 & 5025 of 2018

D.Sundarsingh

...Petitioner

vs.

1.Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Represented by its Secretary, No.143, P.S.Kumara Samay Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.

¶11

2.N.Kumuthavalli

¶12

3.J.Prakash

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the record of the 1 st

¶15

respondent order dated 23.01.2018 in S.H.R.C.No.1634 of 2015 to quash

¶16

the same and remand back to 1 st respondent with a direction to conduct fresh inquiry in the above proceedings.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasudan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran for R1 Special Government Pleader

¶19

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

1/10

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Senthilkumar , J.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order

¶24

dated 23.01.2018 made in S.H.R.C.No.1634 of 2015 by the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission.

¶25

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows:

¶26

2(i) The petitioner is working as a Special Sub Inspector of Police.

¶27

The third respondent is a habitual offender and a series of cases were filed against the third respondent as per the records of D3 Ice House Police Station in Crime Nos.881 of 2011, 1339 of 2013, 45 of 2014 for

¶28

the offences under Section 75 of the City Police Act. On 29.09.2014, the third respondent along with Mohamed Raja and Prabu involved in hand scuffle in drunken brawl in which the third respondent's tooth was broken. A case was registered in Crime No.1978 of 2014 as against Mohamed Raja and Prabu for offences under Section 294(b), 325, 506(ii) I.P.C. Subsequently, the third respondent and Mohamed Raja group

¶29

were involved in frequent fight on account of previous enmity. A case was registered under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.494 of 2014 against

¶30

two warring groups and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai wherein the third respondent had executed a bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C.

¶31

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

¶32

2/10

¶33

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶34

2(ii) On 24.02.2015, when the petitioner and one Head Constable

¶35

Pooncholai were on patrol duty, they got information that the third respondent and Mohamed Raja once again caused public nuisance by indulging in wordy quarrel on account of their previous enmity. Sensing that it would lead to a serious issue, the third respondent and Mohamed Raja were arrested by the petitioner on the same day around 1.30 p.m and they were brought to the Police Station. A case in Crime No.739 of 2015 on the file of D3 Police Station, Ice House, Chennai was registered under Section 75 of the City Police Act against the third respondent and on the same day, he was let out on his own bail at 5.00 p.m.

¶36

3. The second respondent who is the mother of the third respondent had preferred a complaint before the first respondent/SHRC with the allegation that the petitioner and Head Constable Pooncholai had committed human rights violation. According to the petitioner, the alleged human rights violation complaint was foisted against him out of personal vengeance since the petitioner was instrumental in bringing various criminal activities of the third respondent on record.

¶37

4. The first respondent/SHRC took cognizance of the complaint

¶38

and the complainant/second respondent examined herself as PW1, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/10

¶40

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶41

third respondent was examined as PW2, one Dileep Kumar was examined as PW3 and exhibits P1 to P3 were marked which are the Accident Register, Discharge Summary and the photographs taken after treatment. The respondents before the first respondent/SHRC did not come forward to enter into the witness box and depose to prove their case. Though the respondent Police had filed some documents along with counter, they have not marked the same as exhibits.

¶42

5. The second respondent herein has categorically stated before the SHRC that on 24.02.2015 at about 6.00 a.m., Head Constable Pooncholai had come to the house of the complainant and took the third respondent herein to D3 Ice House Police Station. Till 10 a.m., the third respondent did not come out of the Police Station and therefore, the second respondent has enquired in the Police Station. According to second respondent, she was waiting outside the Police Station, around 4.00 p.m, the writ petitioner had come to the Police Station and beaten his son and forced the respondents 2 and 3 to confess the offence.

¶43

6. Thereafter, the second respondent along with her husband and

¶44

one known person had come to the Police Station and handed over

¶45

Rs.1,000/- and after receiving the same, the third respondent was let off. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/10

¶47

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶48

The third respondent had sustained injuries on the left shoulder and on the knee. The third respondent was taken to Royapettah Hospital and they have informed the Doctor who treated him that the injury happened at the instance of the Police. The third respondent had sustained grievous injuries, for which, he was advised to undergo surgery and while returning from the hospital, the second respondent had confronted with the Head Constable Pooncholai as to why her son was beaten up for which, the petitioner had scolded the second respondent.

¶49

7. One Dileep Kumar was examined as PW3/ independent witness

¶50

who has no relationship with the respondents 2 & 3. The relevant paragraph of his deposition during the chief examination is extracted hereunder:

¶51

“fhty; epiyaj;jpy; itj;J Kjy; vjph;k Djhuh; jpU.Re;jh;rpq; vd;gth; gpufhi\ yj;jpahy; mbj;Jf;nfhz;b U e ;jh h;. (Kjy; vjph;k Djhu h; jpU.Re;jh;rpq; ,d;W Kd;dpiyahfpap U e ;jhy; jd;dhy; milahsk; fhl;lKb Ak; vd;W $Wfpwhh;) jhf;fpajpy; gpuf\pd; ,uz;L iffSk; tPq;fpajhy; Kjy; vjph;k Djhuh; jpU.Re;jh;rpq; I]; fl;bfis ntspapy; thq;fp te;J xj;jsk; nfhLj;jhh;. ,lJ Njhs;gl;ilapy; Vw;gl;l fhaj;jpd; kPJk; I]; fl;bia itj;jhh;. gpwF gpufhi\Ak; vd;idAk; , KfkJ uh[hitAk; , gpu G vd;gtiuAk; jpUty;ypf; Nfzp Jiz

¶52

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

¶53

5/10

¶54

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶55

Mizah; mYtyfj;jpw;F md;Nw 2k; vjph;k Djhuh ; jpU.g+ Q ; N r hiy mioj;Jr; nrd;whh;. Jiz Mizah; mYtyfj;jpyp U e ; J vd;id tPl;bw; F mDg; gptpl;lhh;fs;. ”

¶56

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side.

¶57

9. The question arises before us is whether there was any human

¶58

rights violation as against the third respondent which is genesis for the second respondent to prefer a complaint with the first respondent/SHRC.

¶59

10. The FIRs demonstrated that there are a number of pending cases as against the third respondent herein.

¶60

11. Though the Accident Register states that the third respondent

¶61

was assaulted by an unknown person, it is not known as to how the third respondent sustained swelling on the left shoulder and knee when he was taken to Royapettah Hospital on the date of arrest if he was not assaulted

¶62

in the Police Station. It is pertinent to note that the FIR reveals that the

¶63

third respondent and the said Mohamed Raja indulged only in wordy

¶64

quarrel using filthy language and there is no whisper about any physical

¶65

injury sustained by the the third respondent when he was taken to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

6/10

¶67

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶68

Police Station by the petitioner.

¶69

12. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has cross examined PW1 and PW2. During the cross examination, the petitioner was unable to elicit anything in favour of him and he has not brought any material to absolve the charges levelled against him. That apart, the petitioner has failed to cross examine PW3.

¶70

13. There is no material to show that the writ petitioner had filed any application to recall PW3 witness for cross examination. There is no semblance of earnest efforts taken by the petitioner to deny the allegations of PW3 in the chief examination who specifically alleges that the writ petitioner had committed physical assault against the third respondent.

¶71

14. The first respondent/SHRC believing the version of PW3, has made a recommendation for compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant's son Prakash by holding that the PW3 was not cross examined by the writ petitioner. The second recommendation to the Government was to pay the aforesaid compensation and to recover from

¶72

the writ petitioner herein. The evidence of the PW3 goes unchallenged https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

7/10

¶74

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶75

and the Accident Register would show that the third respondent was subjected to physical assault.

¶76

15. Therefore, we see no merits in interfering with the order

¶77

passed by the first respondent/SHRC and accordingly, this writ petition is

¶78

dismissed. N o costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions

¶79

are closed.

¶80

(S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 25.04.2024

¶81

Index: yes/no Speaking order:yes/no Neutral Citation:yes/no pam

¶82

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

8/10

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

The Secretary,

Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumara Samay Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.

¶88

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

¶89

9/10

¶90

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

¶91

S.S.SUNDAR, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Pam

W.P.No.4104 of 2018

25.04.2024

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

¶96

10/10

D.Sundarsingh, v. Tamil Nadu State Human

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sundarsingh, v. Tamil Nadu State Human

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

Anitha Manivasagam, Vs the Commissioner

Sachin.E.M Vs the Revenue Officer

Thangaraj, Vs State Human Rights Commission

Govindammal Vs The state Rep by its Secretary

Kasthuri Vs State Human Rights Commission-Tamil Nadu

K.Shanmugam Vs Union of India