STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU ‘Thiruvarangam’
No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.
Wednesday, the 29th day of May 2024
SHRC Case No.6575 of 2013
PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER.
Tmt.R.Vasuki … Complainant
-Vs-
(1) Thiru S.Rajasekaran, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram (since retired from service).
(2) Thiru S.Ismayil, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram (since retired from service).
(3) Thiru D.Padmanaban, then Head Constable, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram.
(4) Thiru L.Umasankar, then Head Constable, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram.
(5) Thiru S.Dharmalingam, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram (since retired from service).
… Respondents
ORDER
Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is residing in Door No.36/2, 7th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai. On 11.07.2013 at about 05.00 AM the Respondents No.1 to 4 trespassed into her house by scaling the compound wall of her house. When the Complainant asked them for what reason they had trespassed into her house in the morning, the 1st & 2nd Respondents harshly pushed in the shoulders of the Complainant while the 3rd Respondent hit the Complainant with his boots on the elbow and she fell down and her face and elbow hit the ground with force and sustained grievous injuries in the right elbow, shoulder and in the hip regions. At that time her sister-in-law Tmt.Kothai Ammal, who is aged about 65 years, rushed to secure the Complainant, but the Respondents No.1 to 3 shoved her and she also sustained grievous injuries in pelvic girdle, stomach and legs and the above Respondents also abused the Complainant in filthy language. The Respondents No.1 to 4 had stated that under the instruction of the 5th Respondent they barged into the Complainant house and they want to arrest her husband Dr.Rajagopal, who is a renowned Scientist working in Holland, because the Complainant’s husband cheated one Tr.Chidambaram in respect of a land dealing at Pudupakkam Village. Then the Respondents called her 14 years old minor son Kavin and servant maid Tmt.Gowri and told them that her husband is a notorious criminal. The 4th Respondent was waiting at the gate and enquiring the Complainant’s driver Sundaravadivel and also one security of O2 Health Studio which is opposite to the Complainant’s house about the whereabouts of the Complainant’s husband. The Respondents No.1 & 2 informed shortly about the complaint given by one Tr.Chidambaram and the Complainant pleaded that her husband is innocent and TrChidambaram in fact sold the properties in question way back in 2003 by way of registered Power of Attorney and issued sale receipt for full quote, after receiving the entire amount of the properties mentioned in the sale receipt. But the 2nd Respondent slapped on her face while the 1st Respondent pushed down her and the 3rd Respondent joined the fray by hitting the Complainant with his boots and once again her sister-in-law tried to protect the Complainant, she also received all the kicking and beatings for the second time. The above Respondents received phone call from the 5th Respondent and murmured something softly and started harassing her 14 years old minor son Kavin, who was preparing for his quarterly examination. All the Respondents joined together barged into his room and when the small boy started crying out of panic threatened him that he will not go to School nor will he be allowed to attend the exams if he refuses to tell the whereabouts of his father and when the small boy pleaded innocence he was slapped on his face by the Respondents No.2 & 3. The Respondents No.3 & 4 went up to his school in the police van to see whether the Complainant’s son is meeting his father in between. Then the Respondents No.1 to 4 threatened her if her husband not going to appear before the 5th Respondent on 12.07.2013 by 10.00 AM the whole family will be made as accused and remand to custody. The Complainant and her sister-in-law had taken treatment for nearly one month for the injuries caused by the Respondents and spending a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each one of the victims. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and hence suitable action may be taken against them.
2. This Commission initially fixed the Respondents No.1 to 4 as Respondents in this case and later the 5th Respondent was impleaded as Respondent in this case. Though in the complaint as well as in the counter statement both the parties mentioned the Respondents as their interest, this Commission arrayed the Respondents No.1 to 5 as stated above in this case.
3. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the common counter statement filed by the Respondents No.1 to 4 and the separate counter statement filed by the 5th Respondent is as follows:-
The Respondents in their counter statements denied all the allegations stated in the complaint against the Respondents. The Respondents No.1 to 4 had stated in their common counter statement that one Tr.Chidambaram of T.Nagar, Chennai gave a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District on 27.09.2012 stating that he gave a power of attorney to the husband of the Complainant and after he cancelled the power of attorney on 11.01.2007 and the husband of the Complainant and other persons sold his property and committed the breach of trust. Hence on the direction of the higher officials, the 1st Respondent had registered a case on 14.07.2013 U/s 465,468,471,420,294(b),506(i) of IPC against the Complainant’s husband and others. But the accused persons including the Complainant’s husband obtained anticipatory bail granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The Respondents No.1 to 4 denied all the allegations made in the complaint as false and they had submit that they had not violated the human rights of anyone by way of criminal trespass, they are not physically attacking the women, small boy, they are not abusing with filthy language, they are not passing any false information to the neighbours for the simple reason all those things only for the purpose of filing this complaint and the Complainant cooked up a story. Moreover, there is none of the ingredient was made out against these Respondents in the parameter stated in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. In order to escape from the clutches of law, the Complainant filed this complaint against these Respondents with false allegations. The Respondents had acted in accordance with law and had not violated the human rights of the Complainant and others and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The 5th Respondent filed a separate counter by stating that one Tr.Chidambaram gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 27.09.2012 stating that the husband of the Complainant cheated him by the power of attorney executed by him regarding with the land of 3.60.5 acres which is situated at Pudupakkam, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Though Tr.Chidambaram cancelled the power of attorney on 11.01.2007, the husband of the Complainant with an ulterior motive and fraudulent intention executed sale deeds to various persons including the Complainant and hence he requested to take action. The said complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the 5th Respondent and the 5th Respondent in turn forwarded the same to the 1st Respondent to enquire the matter. He is not involved in any of the incident stated in the complaint. But the role of the 5th Respondent is that only he directed the Respondents No.1 to 4 to go for enquiry on the basis of the complaint given by Tr.Chidambaram. In order to escape from the clutches of law the Complainant filed this false complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.- It is the admitted fact of the Respondents No.1 to 4 that they went to the house of PW1 on 11.07.2013 i.e. also in between the time of 05.00 to 05.30 AM but they denied the harassment as stated in the complaint. However, without registering a FIR and issued any notice U/s 41(A) of Cr.P.C. the Respondents No.1 to 4 went to the house of PW1 and tried to ascertain whether the PW2 was there or not and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are believable in terms of harassment meted out in the hands of the Respondents No.1 to 4. The 5th Respondent is concerned, he did not present at the time of occurrence on 11.07.2013. The only allegation against him by PW1 is that he directed the other Respondents to arrest her husband. But it shows from the available records and documents it is proved that the Respondents No.1 to 4 went to the house of the Complainant in the early morning on 11.07.2013 and harassed the Complainant, her son and sister-in-law which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant.
- It is essential to mention the Paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2012(4) CTC 781 is as follows:-
“25. In Bhim Sing, MLA v. State of J & K, 1985(4) SCC 677, this Court expressed the view that the Police Officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens as they are the custodians of law and order and, hence, they should not flout the law by stopping to bizarre acts of lawlessness. It was observed that custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties, for their duty is to protect and not to abduct.”
The above ruling is squarely applicable to the case on hand. - Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that it is established by the Complainant that on 11.07.2013 in the early morning the Respondents No.1 to 4 came to the house of the Complainant and in the name of enquiry they harassed the Complainant, her son and sister-in-law to know the whereabouts of her husband prior to the registration of a case against him on 14.07.2013 which was admitted by the Respondents No.1 to 4. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondents No.1 to 4 had violated the human rights of the Complainant. As far as the 5th Respondent is concerned, as I already discussed, there is no specific overt act against him and there is no concrete evidence to connect him with the allegations stated by the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint against the 5th Respondent is liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.
- Point No.2: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the Respondents No.1 to 4 had violated the human rights of the Complainant. It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights committed by the Respondents No.1 to 4 and fixing of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each from the 1st & 2nd Respondents and Rs.25,000/- each from the 3rd & 4th Respondents as compensation and since the 1st & 2nd Respondents retired from service, the State vicariously liable for the violation of human rights committed by the Respondents No.1 & 2 and the Government is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant on behalf of the Respondents No.1 & 2 (Rs.50000+50000).
- It is essential to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal on the aspect of vicarious liability of the employer. The Court held as follows:-
“Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, in addition to the traditional remedies and not it derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit”.- In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant Tmt.R.Vasuki, W/o Dr.S.Rajagopal, residing in No.36/2, 7th Cross street, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation (The Government shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant on behalf of the Respondents No.1&2 Rs.50000+50000) and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.25,000/- each from the Respondents 3 & 4 (totally Rs.50,000/-). The complaint against the 5th Respondent Thiru S.Dharmalingam, DSP(Retired) is dismissed.
Sd/-
MEMBER
- In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-