(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order passed by it in S.H.R.C.No.6712/2015 dt.6.5.2019 and quash the same.)

N. Dilip Kumar, J.

1. The writ petitioner, then Inspector of Police, is before this Court challenging the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.6712 of 2015, dated 06.05.2019, whereunder, upon the complaint given by the second respondent, the Commission concluded that the complainant is eligible to receive a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the Government of Tamil Nadu, with a further direction to recover the same from the petitioner and also to initiate departmental as well as criminal prosecution against the writ petitioner. The Government is also directed to suspend the writ petitioner during the pendency of the departmental proceedings.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would strenuously contend that the complainant before the SHRC had alleged that on 28th August 2019, while he was at Kayathar Police Station, he questioned the registration of a case against Chelladurai, his son-in-law and at that time, the complainant was assaulted by the writ petitioner and therefore, he had allegedly lodged a complaint before the Human Rights Commission.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would state that the police authorities had received a complaint and a counter complaint from the complainant and his rival faction with regard to the alleged fabrication of documents concerning a civil dispute that had led to the filing of a civil suit in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. There is no violation of human rights. Acting upon the complaint from the respective parties, they had charge-sheeted the complaint registered against the complainant before the Human Rights Commission and it is pending in C.C.No.532 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti. He would contend that the claim of the complainant that he was assaulted in the police station, is not supported by any material document. Either the Accident Register or the medical records produced do not indicate the suffering of any injury by the complainant and the conclusion arrived at by the State Human Rights Commission is not sustainable and it is not supported by any material documents. He would therefore pray this Court to allow the writ petition and set aside the punishment imposed against him.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant would state that the complainant is a retired Assistant Director from the Rural Development Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and, with regard to his property situated in Survey No.204/4A, Panneerkulam Village, some miscreants had attempted to create fabricated records and therefore, he was constrained to file a civil suit in O.S.No.79 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti and in fact, the judgment and decree delivered in the said suit on 14th December 2016 was in his favour. When the police authorities, particularly the writ petitioner, investigated with the said process, they had compelled him to settle the dispute with the rival party and had also registered a fictitious complaint against him, which is now pending in C.C.No.532 of 2015.

5. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the Civil Court judgment and decree in O.S.No.79 of 2012 is now pending challenge before the Appellate Court in an appeal suit.

6. His grievance is that the police authorities have falsely implicated his son-in-law and himself in a criminal case and they have erroneously closed the complaint given by them as mistake of fact. In this regard, he had already filed a protest petition in Criminal M.P.No.1605 of 2020 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti and by order dated 20.11.2020, it has been taken cognizance of and it is now pending in C.C.No.95 of 2023.

7. His grievance is that lack of external injuries would not substantiate that there was no violation of human rights in the police station by the petitioner and he would draw reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar, SHRC, reported in 2025 INSC 677. Therefore, he would pray this Court to sustain the order of the Human Rights Commission.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. A perusal of the order of the State Human Rights Commission would reveal that the Human Rights Commission has come to a conclusion based on the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court in I.A.No.430 of 2012 and other miscellaneous proceedings that happened before the revenue authorities. The Human Rights Commission had also recorded that an FIR is registered against the complainant before the Human Rights Commission.

10. However, the Human Rights Commission had not taken note of the pending Calendar Case in C.C.No.532 of 2015 and the pending Calendar Case in C.C.No.95 of 2023, which are respectively pending against the complainant in the SHRC and pending on the strength of the complaint given by the complainant before the SHRC, respectively.

11. The grievance of the complainant is that he was physically harassed and roughed up by the writ petitioner when he went to the police station to enquire why his son-in-law, Chelladurai, was implicated as an accused.

12. The Human Rights Commission had not given due consideration to the Accident Register and the medical records produced, which inform this Court that no external injury was found on the complainant. The only statement mentioned in the Accident Register is that the complainant claimed himself to have been assaulted by a known person in the police station with hands. The medical records do not support the suffering of any injury, much less any physical injury, by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner. In the absence of any such material, the conclusion of the Human Rights Commission that the writ petitioner had violated the human rights of the complainant is unsubstantiated.

13. The correctness or otherwise of the police authorities in enquiring into the civil dispute that is allegedly pending in A.S.No.2 of 2020 against the judgment and decree delivered in O.S.No.79 of 2012 could not have been adjudicated by the Human Rights Commission. As on date, two Calendar Cases in C.C.No.532 of 2015 and C.C.No.95 of 2023 are admittedly pending. In the absence of any substantial material to show that the complainant before the SHRC suffered any violation of human rights because of any alleged excess of force by the police authority, namely, the petitioner, we do not find any substantial material to sustain the order of the Human Rights Commission. The order of the Human Rights Commission is, therefore, set aside.

14. We do not find the finding of the Apex Court in Pavul Yesu Dhasan (cited supra) relied upon by the learned counsel to be applicable to the facts of the present case. Insofar as this case is concerned, the question is whether the writ petitioner caused any physical injury to the complainant. In particular, the complainant had not given any plausible explanation that compelled him to go to the police station and question the police authority as to why they implicated his son-in-law, Chelladurai, in a criminal case. His conduct as to why he went to the police station to question the authority of the police force in implicating a particular individual as an accused is not explained.

15. It is made clear that, we are not expressing any opinion on the proceedings pending before the competent Civil Court or the criminal cases. The respective Courts are directed to take an independent decision on the basis of the available records. The observations made herein are confined only to the disposal of the present writ petition.

16. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.