SC fines cop ₹2L, says complainants must be treated with dignity

In a message to police personnel across the country, the Supreme Court has said, a citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal as every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity and that is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the order by the Madras High Court which refused to interfere with the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissions direction to the state government to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to a complainant who along with his mother was abused by appellant Police Inspector Pavul Yesu Dhasan by use of filthy language when they went to the police station to lodge an FIR.

Examining the matter, the bench said, "The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking".

The court pointed out, under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution.

"All that the third respondent and his parents wanted was registration of the FIR. Every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity. That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal," the bench added.

Brief Background

The complainant visited the Police Station for lodging a complaint along with his parents.

When the complaint was handed over to a Sub-Inspector of Police, the complainant was informed that since the transaction had taken place at three different places, he cannot accept the complaint and that he could receive it only after the Inspector of Police looks at it.

The Sub Inspector stated that the Inspector was not likely to come to the Police Station on that day. Therefore, he gave calling number of the Inspector to the complainant, whose mother on the same day tried to contact the appellant.

As per the instructions received, the complainant with his parents again visited the Police Station at 5.00 p.m.

They were asked to wait till the arrival of the appellant who arrived at 8.30 p.m. Extremely objectionable language was used by the appellant while talking to the third respondent’s mother which is noted in paragraph (4) of the impugned judgment of the State Human Rights Commission as observed by the Court;

"All that the third respondent wanted is registration of FIR based on his complaint. Though the law is well settled, the Sub-Inspector did not register the crime. The appellant being a senior officer ought to have immediately registered the FIR. However, not only he refused to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the third respondent’s mother"

Case Title: Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu & Ors