SHRC awards compensation to retired SI
[ad_1]
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on Wednesday really helpful the Tamil Nadu authorities to pay compensation of ₹50,000 to a retired sub-inspector, who was allegedly assaulted by police personnel on the Valasaravakkam police station right here in August 2018, in reference to a property dispute.
SHRC appearing Chairperson D. Jayachandran additionally really helpful that the sum be recovered from sub-inspector P.B. Theerthagiri, who was then connected to the station, apart from recommending initiation of disciplinary motion towards the latter as per the principles.
According to complainant N. Boobalan, he retired as sub-inspector after 32 years of service. He had a property dispute along with his youthful brother and a civil go well with towards the identical was nonetheless pending earlier than a subordinate choose in Poonamallee.
While so, the complainant was summoned to the police station on August 27, 2018, the place Theerthagiri allegedly slapped him repeatedly, earlier than snatching his cell phone and a few paperwork. Inspector U. Muthuraja additionally kicked him, the complainant alleged.
“Thereafter, at the instigation of the first respondent, the second respondent registered a criminal case against the complainant under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, and after obtaining the signature in the papers he was left off by the respondents…,” the grievance learn. Hence, Mr. Boobalan approached the SHRC. The respondents denied all allegations.
After listening to either side, the SHRC mentioned, “Considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments of both 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 p.m.,” and added that it was established {that a} false case was registered towards the complainant.
“Therefore, the action on the part of the second respondent is against Article 21 of the Constitution, and thereby the second respondent had violated the human rights of the victim,” the SHRC added.
[ad_2]
