Lakshmanan v. The Secretary

ORDER ( R.HEMALATHA, J.) This petition is filed against the order dated 11.06.2021 of State Human Rights Commission, Chennai in SHRC Case No.852/2019.

2.Briefly the facts of the case : The complainant G.Ramesh before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, is the sixth respondent in the present writ petition. The said Ramesh is running a manufacturing unit of silver craft in the name and style of "G.P.Silver Craft" for the past twenty years at Chennai. He had business transaction with one Krishnamurthy doing the same business in the name and style of "Rajammal Silver" and also with one Sumithi Challani running a business in the name and style of "C.R.Jewellers" on N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai.

2.1. It is alleged that the said Krishnamurthy owed the complainant the amount for silver weighing 111.816 kg and when the same was demanded the said Krishnamurthy reportedly stated that he had supplied the same to Sumithi Challani who in turn was to pay for silver weighing 51.816 kg. It also appears that all the three had a number of transactions which included transfer of land and also other movable properties.

2.2. According to the complainant, he had to approach the police on 11.10.2017 and 07.11.2017 against the said Sumithi Challani for the outstanding amount but of no avail. On 18.09.2018, the complainant had alleged that he was taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police i.e the petitioner where a "Katta Panchayath" was conducted and on 21.09.2018, when the complainant was again made to appear in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, an undertaking letter was forcibly taken from him. Thereafter, on 06.10.2018 the original document and RC book of his Mercedes Benz Car was taken by the petitioner and subsequently, the complainant realised that the petitioner in collusion with Sumithi Challani and others had deceived him. Therefore, he was constrained to file a complaint in SHRC 852/2019 before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, against the petitioner.

2.3 The State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, held that the petitioner as a senior police official had violated the Human Rights of the complainant and therefore the complainant was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and also recommended for departmental action against the petitioner.

2.4. Aggrieved over this order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, the present petition is filed to quash the same by issuance of Writ of Certiorari.

3.Heard Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Wilson, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Ms.R.L.Karthika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.G.Murugeshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.

¶4Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner putforth his submissions in which he argued that the petitioner was one of the few meritorious officers in the State Police Force having won police medals, cash award and medal from the Central Government for his commendable service. It was also contended that the petitioner had never indulged in any katta panchayath as claimed by the complainant and that he had summoned the complainant for enquiry only on the basis of a complaint dated 17.09.2018 against Ramesh by the said Sumithi Challani addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone. In the said complaint, he had alleged that the complainant Ramesh had threatened to kill him if he fails to settle the amount due to the latter. It was further contended that the petitioner being a senior police officer was aware that civil matters have to be adjudicated legally only in the Court of law and that he was in no manner involved to settle the money dispute between the parties. All the allegations made against the petitioner were unfounded and baseless and therefore, the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, is liable to be quashed.

5.Per contra Mr.S.Wilson, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that it was a humiliating experience in which the petitioner acted in an unprofessional manner abusing his powers and helping the said Sumithi Challani by procuring the original papers and RC book of the 6th respondent's Mercedes Benz Car. According to the counsel, this was a clear case of Human Rights Violation and therefore State Human Rights Commission was right in ordering a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the 6th respondent/complainant and also to initiate departmental action against the petitioner.

¶6Mr.G.Murugeshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent contended that though the 6th respondent lodged a complaint with the police against Sumithi Challani, the police did not take action against him and on the other hand, he was taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (the petitioner herein), where a "katta panchayath" was conducted and on 21.09.2018, the 6th respondent was once again summoned to the petitioner's office and an undertaking letter was forcibly taken by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, on 06.10.2018, the original documents and RC book of his Mercedes Benz car was taken by the petitioner and thereafter only he realised that the petitioner in collusion with the Sumithi Challani and others had deceived him. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and contended that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. He further contended that the police without registering any FIR had arbitrarily conducted a "katta Panchayath" and forcibly taken the RC book and other records of Mercedes Benz car belonging to the 6th respondent and thus the petitioner had violated his human rights. 7 .The subject of Human Rights Violation is such a sensitive one wherein careful scrutiny and analysis have to be done before holding that there has been an instance of Human Rights Violation. Human Rights Violation includes arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination ; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred. Keeping in mind these aspects, if we go into the contents of the complaint dated

23.01.2019 by Mr.Ramesh addressed to the State Human Rights Commission it can be easily deciphered that there had been four to five players in a series of transactions involving transactions in cash and in kind. It is true that the complainant Ramesh had supplied silver lamps (Kutthu Vilakku) to C.R.Jewellers owned by Sumithi Challani through one Krishnamurthy and at one point of time since payment got stuck had stopped supplying them. In such circumstances, the complainant Ramesh had also faced pending payment issue with Krishnamurthy who also used to buy silver lamps from him. It was then the complainant came to know that out of the 111.816 kg silver products procured by the said Krishnamurthy, 51.816 kg was supplied to C.R.Jewellers by the said Krishnamurthy and therefore in lieu of the payment of the remaining 60 kg of silver articles he had offered 55 cents of land in Kolathur in his name through a power of attorney and got it registered. According to the complainant, subsequently, he along with the said Krishnamurthy went to the residence of Sumithi Challani demanding the payment for the remaining 51.816 kg silver when the said Sumithi Challani had promised to settle the dues within three months. Out of this dues 20 kg of silver were recovered in two instalments from Sumithi Challani with the help of one Jayantilal who was the President of Madras Jewellers Association. However, 31.816 kg silver was still outstanding for payment. Having failed to recover the remaining silver the complainant filed a police complaint in G1-Vepery Police Station on 11.10.2017. Again on

07.11.2017 another complaint was given in the Commissioner's office by the complainant. What followed thereafter was the sequence of transactions in which Sumithi Challani's father offered his Mercedes Benz Car for Rs.22 Lakhs to square off the dues for the silver procured by Sumithi Challani and the complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- as the balance amount after adjusting the dues from Sumithi Challani. The original RC book and other related papers were also given to the complainant who immediately transferred the car in his name. Later, he transferred the same in the name of one M.G.Balaji, his friend, who availed a loan from HDFC Bank, Nelson Manickam Road Branch for Rs.16,00,000/- hypothecating the car. It is also mentioned in the complaint that in January 2018, Sumithi Challani along with the said Krishnamurthy had approached him stating that the Benz Car had much emotional value to him since his grandfather had expired while he was in the car and therefore, was ready to offer 6000 sq.ft. of land in 5 acres layout developed by his father in Pazhayanur, Kancheepuram District awaiting DTCP approval and in lieu of the same wanted the Benz Car to be transferred back to his name. The complainant Ramesh who visited the layout was impressed and willing to re-transfer the car subject to 6000 sq.ft. of land transferred to him following which an agreement dated

23.01.2018 was executed. On 10.03.2018, when the sale deed execution for the land was enquired about by the complainant, Anandmal, the father of Sumithi Challani cited lack of funds for the delay in DTCP approval and also offered 9600 sq.ft of land in lieu of which he obtained 85 kg of silver bar from the complainant. An agreement for 9600 sq.ft was also signed on 12.03.2018.

8.Subsequently, Krishnamurthy and another Sunil also promised the complainant that they would share the profit in silver business and took 26 kg and 45 kg of silver bars from the complainant for which the said Krishnamurthy executed a loan document for Rs.28,40,000/-. He also offered a Power of Attorney for 27 cents of land in Mathur Village, Thiruvallur District, on 24.04.2018 and got it registered. Further, the father of Sumithi Challani, Anandmal, on

16.05.2018 took Rs.6.5 lakhs cash from the complainant through his manager Sarangapani for the DTCP approval in lieu of which an unregistered deed was executed. In such circumstances, on 18.09.2018 five unidentified persons claiming to be police had taken the complainant to the Assistant Commissioner's office stating that there was a complaint from Sumithi Challani against him for having threatened him (Sumithi Challani) with dire consequences. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner in order to help Sumithi Challani and Krishnamurthy took an undertaking in writing that he would wait till 21.09.2018 by which time the amounts due to him would be settled by Sumithi Challani and Krishnamurthy. On 06.10.2018, the RC book and related papers of the Benz Car and other documents was also taken by the petitioner under the promise that the dispute would be settled amicably.

¶9The State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, relied on a portion of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar District, Chennai who was deputed by the Joint Commissioner of Police to go into the truth of the various allegations in the written complaint made by the complainant G.Ramesh. The State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, relied on the 'warning letter' purportedly issued to the petitioner for indulging in the compromise between the parties along with their advocates in his office. This warning letter (copy of which was not attached) made the State State Humam Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, conclude that there was violation of human rights by the petitioner. This was so because money dispute was a civil matter and the petitioner had allegedly got himself into it for resolving the issue. The same report also contains portions which reflect the character of the complainant. It also makes reference to the fact that the complainant suffered from mental ailment. These are relevant because for deciding 'human rights violation' there need to be conclusive proof. There is a very thin line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry. It can be observed that the complainant had the habit of landing himself into financial problems on his own volition by lending money and has been approaching police since 2017 on several occasions. The series of transactions reproduced from his complaint would go to prove the hasty and irrational decisions by the complainant. He also had the habit of approaching different police stations with different advocates and also insisting on registering FIRs. In fact on one earlier occasion CSR 383/2018 was made in Yaanaikavuni Police Station based on his complaint. The relevant extract of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police is reproduced below : "......... ,k;kD njhlh;ghf kDjhuh; jpU.,uNk~; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh; jpU.,yl;Rkzd; cjtp Mizah; G+f;fil rufk; Mfpath;fis tprhuiz nra;J thf;F%yk; ngwg;gl;lJ. kDjhuh; mtUila thf;F%yj;jpy; kDtpy; cs;s rhuhk;rq;fisNa cWjpr; nra;Jj; njhptpj;Jk; mth; jug;G Mtzq;fshf (1) 07.11.2017 Njjpapl;l fhty; Mizah; nrd;id mth;fSf;F mspj;j kDtpd; efy; (2)

18.09.2018 ehspl;l kDjhuh; vjph;kDjhuUf;F vOjg;gl;l fbjj;jpd; efy; (3) 06.10.2018 ehspl;l kDjhuh; vjph;kDjhuUf;F vOjpa ,U fbjq;fspd; efy; (4) jfty; mwpAk; chpikr; rl;lg;gb 26.06.2019k; Njjp mspj;j kDtpd; kPjhd gjpy; fbjj;jpd; efy; (5) rp2 ahidf;fTdp fhty; epiya rp v]; Mh; 383/2018-d; efy; Mfpatw;iwj; jhf;fy;

nra;Js;shh;.

vjph;kDjhuh;

mtUila thf;F%yj;jpy; kDjhuhpd; $w;Wf;fis kWj;Js;sNjhL jpU Rkpj;jp ryhdp vd;gth; mspj;j 17.09.2018k; ehspl;l Gfhh; njhlh;ghf kDjhuiu 18.09.2018 md;W mioj;J tprhuiz nra;jjhfTk; me;j tprhuizapy; kDjhuUf;Fk; jpUthsh;fs; Rkpj;jp ryhdp kw;Wk; fpU~;z%h;j;jp kw;Wk; rpyUld; ,Ue;j njhopy; njhlh;ghd nfhLf;fy; thq;fy; gpur;ridfisj; jPh;j;Jf; nfhs;s fhty; Mizahplk; Vw;fdNt Gfhh; mspj;J mJ njhlh;ghf [p1 Ntg;Nghp fhty; epiyaj;jpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;ljhfj; njhpate;jjhfTk; mg;nghOJ ,UtUf;Fk; ,ilapyhd njhopy; uPjpahd nfhLf;fy; thq;fy; gpur;ridfisr; rkurkhfj; jPh;j;Jf; nfhz;ljhfj; njhpate;jjhfTk; jpU.Rkpj;jp ryhdp kDjhuhpd; kPJ kpul;bajhf mspj;jg; Gfhhpd; kPJ Nky; eltbf;ifj; Njitapy;iy vd;Wf; $wpajd; mbg;gilapy; mth;fSf;F ,ilapy; cs;s gzg;gpur;ridj; njhlh;ghf jFe;j ePjpkd;wj;jpid mZfpj; jPh;j;Jf; nfhs;s mwpTWj;jp me;j kDtpd; kPJ Nky; eltbf;if iftplg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;, ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuh; jpU.,uNk~; kw;Wk; Rkpj;jp ryhdp Mfpath;fs; mth;fSf;F ,ilapy; cs;s gzk; nfhLf;fy; thq;fy; gpur;ridia tof;fwpQh;fSld; itj;J rkurk; Ngrp mjdbg;gilapy;

21.09.2018k; Njjp ngw;Wf;nfhs;tjhfj; njhptpj;Jr; nrd;wjhfTk; 21.09.2018 md;W kDjhuh; M[uhfhky; ,Ue;jjhy; mtiu njhiyNgrpapy; mioj;jjpy; mth;

06.10.2018 md;W tprhuizf;F NtnwhU tof;fwpQUld; M[uhfpajhfTk; mth;fSf;Fs; fye;J Ngrp rkhjhdkhfp Mtzq;fisg; ngw;Wf;nfhz;L mJ njhlh;ghf mtuJ mYtyj;jpy; vOj;J%yk; njhptpj;Jr; nrd;wjhfTk; ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuh; Nkw;gb Rkpj;jp ryhdp kPJ g;gp6 nfhLq;ifA+h; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; 2019k; Mz;L Vg;uy; khjk; xU Gfhhpid mspj;J mg;GfhuhdJ jpU fy;tp vd;w cjtp Ma;thsuhy; tprhuiz nra;ag;gl;L mjdbg;gilapy; mth;fSf;Fs; gzk; ngw;Wf;nfhz;L rkhjhdkhfr; nrd;wjhfj; njhpate;jjhfTk; mjd; gpd;dh; fle;j [_d; khjk; kDjhuh; fhty; Mizahplk; mspj;j Gfhh; njhlh;ghf 24.06.2019 md;W tof;fwpQUld; M[uhd kDjhuh; jpU.Rkpj;jp ryhdp vd;gthplk; rkhjhdkhfr; nrd;W fhUf;F cz;lhd gzk; &gha; 1168808/-j;jpy; &gha; 988808/-I IXgp tq;fp tiuNthiyahf mtuJ mYtyfj;jpy; xg;gilj;jij kDjhuh; te;J ngw;Wr; nry;Yk;gb gyKiw mwpTWj;jpAk; kDjhuh; cly;eyk; ghjpf;fg;gl;L kdeyr; rpfpr;irf;fhf kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;jjhfj; njhpate;jjhfTk; gpd;dh; 12.07.2019 md;W kDjhuh; mtUila tof;fwpQUld; te;J Nkw;gb tiuNthiyiag; ngw;Wf; nfhz;Lr; nrd;wth; jpUk;g tutpy;iy vd;Wk; kDjhuh; mtUf;Fk; jpU.Rkpj;jp ryhdp kw;Wk; fpU~;z%h;j;jp kw;Wk; rpyUld; cs;s njhopy; njhlh;ghd gzk; nfhLf;fy; thq;fy; gpur;ridiaj; jPh;j;Jf; nfhs;sg; gy fhty; epiyaq;fspy; Gfhh; mspj;J tof;fwpQh;fSld; nrd;W rkurk; nra;J nfs;Sk; tof;fk; cs;sth;

vd;Wk;

kDjhuUf;Fj;

juNtz;ba gzg;ghpth;j;jidfs;

midj;Jk;

Kiwahff; nfhLf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;Wk; mtUf;Fr; NruNtz;ba gzk; kw;Wk; nts;sp midj;Jk; mtUf;Fg; ngw;Wj; jug;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;Wk; ,th; Ntz;Lnkd;Nw ,t;thW cz;ikf;F khwhdg; Gfhhhpid mspj;J tUtjhfTk; njhptpj;Js;shh;. ,k;kDtpd; kPJ tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;ljpy; kDjhuUf;Fk; jpU.Rkpj;jp ryhdp, fpU~;z%h;j;jp kw;Wk; rpyUf;Fk; ,ilapy; njhopy; uPjpahd gzk; nfhLf;fy; thq;fy; rk;ge;jkhfg; gpur;ridfs; ,Ue;J te;Js;sJk; ,jid chpa ePjpkd;wk; %yk; mZfpj; jPh;f;fhky; gy;NtW fhty; epiyaq;fspYk; fhty; Mizah; mYtyj;jpYk; kDjhuh; Gfhh; mspj;J mjdbg;gilapy; fhty;Jiwapdh; %yk; tprhuiz nra;ag;gl;Lj; jPh;g;gjw;F kDjhuh; Kaw;rpr; nra;Js;shh; vd;gJk; mjdhy; jpU.Rkpj;jp ryhdp vd;gtUk; fhty; cjtp Mizah; G+f;fil rufj;jpid mZfp Nkw;gb gpur;ridiaj; jPh;f;ff; Nfhhpajd;

mbg;gilapy;

kDjhuh;

tprhuizf;F miof;fg;gl;L mjd; mbg;gilapy; tprhuizapd; Kbtpy; ,UtUk; rkhjhdkhfr; nry;Ytjhf KbT nra;ag;gl;L kDjhuh; 18.09.2018 kw;Wk; 06.10.2018 Mfpa ehl;fspy; fhty; cjtp MizaUf;F fbjq;fs; mspj;Js;shh;. Mdhy; mjpy; $wpagb mth;fSf;F ,ilapyhd gzg;ghpth;j;jidfs;

KOikahfj;

jPh;f;fg;glhjjhy; kDjhuh; gyKiw fhty; cjtp Mizaiu mZfpf; Nfl;Lk;

mtuJ

gzk;

njhlh;ghd

gpur;ridj; jPh;f;fg;glhjjhy; fhty; cjtp Mizah; kPJ ,t;thW kD mspj;Js;sJj; njhpatUfpwJ. ......... "

¶10It is clear from the contents of the report that the complainant was not a victim of human rights violation. He was neither detained illegally nor subjected to any mental harassment or torture. He, even otherwise, had the habit of going to police stations with such complaints. It is also evident from the contents of his own complaint that his debtors never disputed the amount due or refused to repay the loans. It can also be easily inferred as to who would have threatened whom and whether the complaint dated 17.09.2018 by Sumithi Challani against Ramesh was true. Public visit police stations even for trivial issues of civil nature and at times truce is arrived at the stations. Therefore, without any allegations of harassment or threat by the police, such conclusions regarding human rights violations as concluded by the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, would put the entire police force on defence mode. The petitioner is not accused of any coercive method. The complainant's grievances have been resolved ultimately. He was only the creditor and the amounts due to him were settled. In such circumstances, the decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and Ors (cited supra), may not apply to the facts of the present case.

11.This does not mean that there are no instances of human rights violation in police stations. There are instances. But every instance of a casual police enquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation. The awareness amongst public is also lacking. They do not differentiate between civil and criminal matters. More sensitisation of the police force in such matter is required. Police force play a vital role in maintaining law and order. Though they need to exercise caution while handling such cases, they cannot be accused of human rights violation at the drop of a hat. It may turn out to be a demoralising factor to the entire police force. Therefore, the present case is not one which can be classified as a human rights violation.

¶12In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and consequently the orders dated 11.06.2021, of the State Human Rights Commission,Chennai, in SHRC Case No.852/2019, is quashed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (V.M.V.,J.) (R.H.,J.)

08.02.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl To

1.The Secretary, State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 001.

3.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.

4.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.

5.The Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 021.

W.P.No.17619oofo2021 andoW.M.P.No.18752oofo2021 oooooooooooooooooooooooV.M.VELUMANI,oJ. and R.oHEMALATHA,oJ. mtl W.P.No.17619oofo2021 &oW.M.P.oNo.18752oofo2021 o08.02.2023 Pageo21oofo21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 24.01.2023 DELIVERED ON : 08.02.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA & W.M.P. No.18752 of 2021 Lakshmanan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary, State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 001. 3.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. 4.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai. 5.The Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 021. 6. G.Ramesh ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ Certiorari to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in SHRC Case No.852/2019 dated 11.06.2021 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvam for Mr.K. Mayurapriyan For R1 : Mr.S.Wilson For R2 to R5 : Ms.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.G.Murugeshkumar