M.Rajasekaran v. The Registrar,
2025:MHC:521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR M.Rajasekaran ..
Petitioner v.
1. The Registrar Office of State Human Rights Commission No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028
2. Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan
3. Thiru.Sakthi Ganesan ..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of impugned order of the Commission in SHRC Case No.6932/22/44 of 2022 dated 16.09.2024 issued by 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently issue direction to the first respondent to conduct the fresh enquiry on the complaint dated 28.08.2021.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.T.Dasarathan For Respondents ::
Mr.D.David Sundar Singh for R1 Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 & R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The complaint filed by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission is about the improper investigation conducted by the police in a criminal case. Earlier the complainant filed a complaint against the police and that was numbered by the Commission in SHRC No.5205 of 2019 and after a detailed enquiry, it was dismissed on 15.06.2022. Thereafter, a further complaint was filed. The second complaint was registered as SHRC No.6932 of 2022. The Commission had forwarded the complaint to the Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore with a direction to conduct an enquiry and send a report to the Commission and the Inspector General of Police appointed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem as an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, the report was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The
said report was elaborately considered by the Commission and the Commission found that the respondents had acted in accordance with law and not violated the human rights of the complainant. Since the Commission did not find any merit in the case of the writ petitioner, it was closed. The said order is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The petitioner is already facing 14 criminal cases and the details of the criminal cases registered against him are as under:- Velur Cr.No.108/2019 u/s 419, 420, 294(b), 506(i) IPC 06.03.2019 09.03.2019 Formal arrest made Bail granted Paramathi Cr.No.45/2019 u/s 420 IPC & 45 Advocate Act 17.03.2019 17.03.2019 Arrested Bail granted Velur AWPS Cr.No.02/2019 u/s 294(b), 341, 364, 506(ii), 354A IPC and 4 of TNWH Act 04.03.2019 10.03.2019 Formal Arrest made Bail granted Velur AWPS Cr.No.07/2019 u/s 294(b), 323, 376, 506(ii) IPC (M.F) 22.10.2019 22.10.2019 Not arrested (M.F) Velur Cr.No.1227/2020 u/s 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC 25.08.2020 25.08.2020 Arrested Bail granted Velur Cr.No.1262/2020 u/s 294(b), 323, 427, 506(ii) IPC 03.09.2020 Arrested Bail granted
05.09.2020 Nallur Cr.No.628/2020 u/s 294(b), 323, 419, 427,392 r/w 397 IPC 04.09.2020 04.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail CrPC statement recorded Velur Cr.No.1306/2020 u/s 294(b), 417, 419, 420 and 506(ii) IPC 16.06.2020 19.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail.
CrPC statement recorded Velur Cr.No.1307/2020 u/s 294(b), 419, 506(i) IPC r/w 4 of TNWH Act 16.06.2020 19.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail.
CrPC statement recorded Nallur Cr.No.638/2020 u/s 417, 419, 420, 506(i) IPC 02.09.2020 19.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail.
CrPC statement recorded V.G.Patty Cr.No.711/2020 u/s 417, 419, 420, 506(i) IPC 04.09.2020 18.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail.
CrPC statement recorded Puduchatram Cr.No.513/2020 u/s 120(b), 294(b), 419, 420, 506(i) IPC 27.08.2020 20.09.2020 Arrested Obtained Bail.
CrPC statement recorded Rasipuram Cr.No.1533/2020 u/s 353, 309 IPC 10.09.2020 11.09.2020 Not arrested Namakkal Cr.No.1317/2020 u/s 406, 419, 17.08.2020 Formal arrest
420, 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w 4 of Women Harassment Act 26.09.2020 made Bail not granted
3. In the present case, the allegation is about improper investigation by the police in a criminal case and therefore there is no impediment for the Commission to refer the matter to the higher police authorities to conduct enquiry. The report of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem was considered by the Commission and it was found satisfactory. That being so, there is no other reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Commission. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 21.02.2025 ss To
1. The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss 21.02.2025