india

Police excess: SHRC recommends compensation

SHRC acting chairperson D. Jayachandran also recommended that the sum of ₹50,000 be recovered from a Sub-Inspector of Police

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on Wednesday recommended the Tamil Nadu government to pay a compensation of ₹50,000 to a retired Sub Inspector, who was allegedly assaulted by police personnel in Valasaravakkam Police Station in August 2018, in connection with a property dispute.

SHRC acting chairperson D. Jayachandran also recommended that the sum of ₹50,000 be recovered from Sub-Inspector of Police P.B. Theerthagiri, who was then attached to R-9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, besides recommending to initiate disciplinary action against the latter as per the rules.

According to complainant N. Boobalan, he retired as Sub Inspector after 32 years of service. He had a property dispute with his younger brother and a civil suit against his younger brother was still pending before Subordinate Judge in Poonamallee.

While so, the complainant was summoned to the police station on August 27, 2018 where the Sub-Inspector of Police P.B. Theerthagiri allegedly slapped him repeatedly, before snatching his mobile phone and some documents. Inspector of Police U. Muthuraja too kicked him with his shoes, the complainant alleged.

“Thereafter at the instigation of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent registered a criminal case against the complainant under section 75 of TN City Police Act, 1888 and after obtaining the signature in the papers he was left off by the respondents..” and hence the complainant filed a complainant before the SHRC. The Respondents denied all the allegations stated in the complaint against them.

After hearing both sides, the SHRC said, “Considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments of both the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant has established the fact that he was taken to the police station on the said date and detained there up to 6 pm.”

It was also established that a false case was registered against the complainant by the Sub Inspector even though the complainant had not committed any such offence. “Therefore, the action on the part of the 2nd Respondent is against Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and thereby the 2nd Respondent had violated the human rights of the victim.”

Source: Read Full Article