Madras High Court
P.Natarajan vs The Human Rights Commission
Author: M. Sundar
Bench: M. Sundar
2025:MHC:1678
WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 03-07-2025
Delivered on : 16 .07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
AND
WMP.Nos.11172 of 2018 and 12327 of 2018
1. P.Natarajan
S/o.S.Perumal Gounder ..Petitioner in W.P.No. 9361 of 2018
2. S.Sumathi
D/o. K.Subramanian ..Petitioner in W.P.No. 10357 of 2018
Vs
1. The Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarangam,
No. 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
(Greenway Road)
Chennai-600028.
2.P.Rajathi
W/o.Paramasivam ..Respondent in both WPs
Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to SHRC Case No. 601 of 2013 and quash the order dated
20.02.2018 passed by the 1st respondent.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm )
WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
For Petitioners: Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
(in both WPs)
For Respondent: Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP – R1
For Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
(in both WPs) Mr.Ravindran Venkatachalapathy-R2
COMMON ORDER
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.) The challenge in these two captioned writ petitions is to the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No. 601 of 2013, wherein the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the respondent-complainant. The Government, in turn, was permitted to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each from the petitioners. Accordingly, these writ petitions are taken up together, heard, and are being disposed of by way of a common order.
2.The factual matrix leading to the filing of these writ petitions is as follows:
2.1 The second respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the first respondent-Commission alleging that on 18.01.2013, she received a phone call from the Maliakarai Police Station, summoning her, her husband Paramasivam, 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 and her daughter Pavunammal to appear for an enquiry at 2.00 p.m. Upon their arrival at the police station, it was alleged that the petitioner in W.P. No. 9361 of 2018 pulled the shirt of the complainant’s son and repeatedly slapped him.
Further, the petitioner in W.P. No. 10357 of 2018, along with other police personnel, allegedly assaulted the complainant and her husband. It was also alleged that the complainant was pulled by her hair, pushed, and kicked on her stomach, causing injury to her face.
2.2 The complainant and her family members were allegedly handcuffed and subjected to torture until 7.00 p.m. It was also alleged that the petitioner in W.P. No. 9361 of 2018 demanded and received Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant before releasing them on bail, after obtaining signatures on certain documents. The complainant subsequently underwent treatment as an inpatient at the Government Hospital, Attur, and obtained a wound certificate. On the following day, at 10.00 a.m., the petitioner in W.P. No. 10357 of 2018 allegedly took the complainant from the hospital to the police station and obtained her signature.
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 2.3 Both petitioners appeared before the Commission and denied the allegations. To prove her case, the complainant examined herself as PW1, her granddaughter Narmadha as PW2, her son Ashok as PW3, and her daughter-in- law Ramya as PW4. Five documents were exhibited. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10357 of 2018 was examined as RW1 and produced 14 documents. The Commission, upon analysing the evidence, found that the petitioners had violated the human rights of the complainant, though no such finding was made against the other police personnel.
3. Mr. P. Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the complaint originated from a domestic dispute between PW4 and the complainant’s son. Pursuant to PW4’s complaint, a case was registered under Section 294(b) IPC against the complainant and her family members. Their arrest was effected in accordance with the provisions of Section 436 CrPC, considering the offence was cognizable and bailable. It was further submitted that the medical records only indicated a contusion of 2x3 cm on the complainant’s right cheek, which contradicted the more serious injuries alleged. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 There were no independent witnesses, and the statements made by the complainant and her relatives were self-serving. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence of any human rights violation, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the second respondent- complainant contended that the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Cr.PC, including unlawful handcuffing. It was argued that the evidence clearly established assault and torture by the petitioners, amounting to a gross violation of human rights, justifying the order passed by the Commission.
5. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Commission, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent and sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly perused the records and evidence produced before the Commission.
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
7. A perusal of the complaint reveals allegations of assault, but no specific averment was initially made regarding the legality of the arrest. However, in the examination-in-chief, the complainant deposed that she and her family members were handcuffed and that Rs. 4,000/- was forcibly taken as bribe, with their signatures obtained on blank papers. Her witnesses corroborated the fact that they were brought to the police station at 4.15 p.m., handcuffed, and assaulted.
8. RW1, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, admitted in her testimony that a case was registered based on the complaint of PW4 (daughter-in-law of PW1), and that the complainant was arrested at Malliakarai Junction at 6.45 p.m. and released on bail at 9.30 p.m. during the same night. She also admitted in cross-examination that no arrest memo or record was produced to justify the arrest of a woman after sunset as mandated by law.
9. Section 46(4) of the Cr.PC prohibits the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise except in exceptional circumstances, which must be recorded in writing by a woman police officer with prior permission obtained from the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9361 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 2018, who was the Inspector of Police, did not enter the witness box to deny the complainant’s version. The admission by RW1, coupled with lack of compliance with the statutory procedure, clearly establishes that the arrest was illegal and in violation of Section 46(4) CrPC. No documentation was produced to show that prior permission from the Magistrate was obtained.
10. It was further admitted by RW1 that the complaint led to the registration of Crime No. 12/13 under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. A charge sheet was filed, and the complainant and her family were acquitted after trial. Thus, the case cannot be said to have been registered maliciously or without probable cause. With respect to the allegations of severe assault, including broken teeth, the medical evidence indicated only a minor contusion of 2x3 cm on the right cheek. The evidence of the complainant and her relatives did not corroborate the severity of the injury claimed.
11. The complainant and her witnesses also claimed that around 20 persons were present when the alleged bribe of Rs. 4,000/- was taken. However, no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate this 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 allegation. Furthermore, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 was inconsistent with respect to the demand, payment, and the exact amount of the alleged gratification. Hence, the findings of the Commission regarding the assault, and the demand and acceptance of gratification, are not supported by substantial or credible evidence. To this extent, the impugned order is unsustainable.
12. RW1 categorically admitted that the complainant was arrested at 6.45 p.m. outside the police station and brought to the station thereafter. It would have been a different scenario had the petitioners formally arrested the complainant inside the police station after sunset, considering that the offences alleged were non-cognizable and bailable, and thereafter enlarged her on bail upon execution of a bond. However, since the arrest was made after sunset and without compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the CrPC, the same stands vitiated. Thus, the finding of the Commission, to the extent that it relates to the illegality of the arrest, cannot be interfered with.
13. However, beyond the issue of the illegal arrest, there is no substantive or corroborated evidence to establish that the complainant and her family members were harassed, tortured, or assaulted by the petitioners. There 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 is no record before the Commission indicating that the petitioners had any prior history of human rights violations. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the petitioners deliberately, and with malafide intention, effected the arrests in utter disregard of the provisions of law or the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, it would have sufficed if the Commission had confined its directions to awarding compensation alone, rather than directing the Government to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners, which could have serious implications on their service careers.
14. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the complainant in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- is just and reasonable, having regard to the illegal arrest. However, the direction to the Government to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners, as well as to recover Rs. 25,000/- from each of them, is not sustainable in law or on facts. Accordingly, the following directions are issued;
i. Clause 2 of the impugned order, recommending to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners is hereby set aside. 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm ) WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018 ii.Clause 1 of the impugned order, directing the Government to pay Rs.50,000/- to the 2nd respondent-complainant and in turn recover a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each from the petitioners herein is confirmed.
15. With the above observation, these writ petitions are allowed in part. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.,J.] [H.C., J]
16.07.2025
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
ak
To
The Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarangam,
No. 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600028.
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm )
WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
M. SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak
Pre-delivery order in
WP Nos. 9361 of 2018 and 10357 of 2018
AND
WMP.Nos.11172 of 2018 and 12327 of 2018
16.07.2025
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 02:10:31 pm )