V.Anandhan v. The Registrar

2025:MHC:2364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and W.M.P.No.5166 of 2023 V.Anandhan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Registrar, State Human Right Commission, Tamil Nadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2.V.Ramadurai

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent commission pertaining to the order passed in S.H.R.C.No.4888/2018 dated 18.10.2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijaya Basker for M/s.Law Vision For R1 : Mr.K.Suresh, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) As against the order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 18.10.2022 passed in SHRC Case No.4888 of 2018, wherein the Commission had found violation of human rights against the complainant and his family members and ordered the Government to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with a consequential observation for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner herein, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, he would submit that the entire incident alleged by the complainant was videographed and the recordings were also produced through a CD, along with the counter affidavit filed by him before the Commissioner. Since the video recordings evidence the real happenings, which are not in violation of human rights, non-mentioning of the evidence by the Commission would amount to perversity. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had already conducted an enquiry and had filed a closure report, which by itself would evidence that the complaint made

by the second respondent is false, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Commission.

3. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the Commission, in the impugned order, had recorded that though the petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and claimed to have recorded all the incidents that occurred in the disputed land that happened on 21.05.2018, he had not produced any video to prove his defence, which raises a doubt about the authenticity of the existence of the video. Additionally, the video which is claimed to have been recorded in a CD, has not been marked as a document. While that being so, we fail to understand as to how a mere claim in the counter affidavit that a CD is being produced before the Commission would be treated as a piece of evidence to substantiate the petitioner's case.

4. Insofar as the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Sub Divisional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem, had only conducted an enquiry with regard to the complaint given by the second respondent herein, in which he has alleged about the trespass by the third party, as well as the oral threat and intimidation made by him. This complaint does not refer to any of the

claims made by the complainant about the petitioner having attacked him on his left chest and shoulder. Merely closing the complaint as a mistake of fact by the Deputy Superintendent of Police will not establish the incident alleged to have taken place on 21.05.2018.

5. In this background, we do not find any perversity or any other illegality in the order of the Commission. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J] 22.09.2025 Index:Yes Speaking order hvk

To The Registrar, State Human Right Commission, Tamil Nadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai - 600 028.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

hvk 22.09.2025