The petitioners herein stand accused of having committed offencesunder Sections 170, 419, 353, 506(1) r/w.34 of IPC and are facing trial inC.C No.343 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Tirunelveli.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2010 at about 20.00 hrswhen the fifth respondent, namely, Tmt.V.Roselin Savio, was on duty as theSub Inspector of Police of Veeravanallur Police Station, the accused enteredthe station premises by falsely posing themselves as if they are coming fromHuman Rights Commission and authoritatively demanded certain documents pertaining to one Suresh who was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (shortly known as Goondas Act).When the said Sub Inspector of Police wanted to know the identity of the accused, they not only refused but alsothreatened her with dire consequence.Thereupon, the said Sub Inspector ofPolice informed her superior officials.Since the accused intentionallyentered the police station by impersonating themselves as officialsrepresenting the Government Human Rights Commission and made the Sub Inspector of Police to believe so and demanded production of case documents,Crime No.161 of 2010 was registered on the file of the VeeravanallurPolice Station.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted thatOne Suresh, a Dalit Youth who was a resident of Veeravanallur was subjectedto human rights abuse.Therefore, a Non Governmental Organization known as Dalit Foundation constituted a fact finding team to go into the said issue.The said Dalit Foundation and Peoples Watch had organized a trainingprogramme from 11.08.2010 to 20.08.2010 at Pillar House, Madurai.Asa part of the training, the accused visited Veeravanallur to gather materialsrelating to the said issue.They interviewed the family members of the saidSuresh.Thereafter, they went to Veeravanallur Police Station to enquire theStation House officer about the status of the case pertaining to the arrestof the said Suresh and the alleged ill treatment meted out to him in thepolice station.(P-351-379).The police have concealed evidence including letters of authority carried byeach trainee issued by People's Watch, large training manuals and otherevidence which would reveal the fact that they were trainees.(Discussedin Para 9).The accused Suresh, was arrested from a temple festival and brutally beatenin full view of public.The allegation of torture by police is confirmed byDr.(P.695) and statement of Dr.Simson Ravi, Assistant Surgeon,Govt.Hospital (P-291-293).The accused/victim Shri.Gnana Thiraviyam who was a diabetic patient was notgiven any treatment/medicine by the Police/Jail Authorities due to which hisblood sugar rose to level of 480 and he suffered ill-health.His medicalpapers are enclosed.(P.1415-1431).The Hon'ble Commission may advise the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to directthe concerned Public Prosecutor to withdraw the Case FIR No.161/10 u/s 170/353/416/506(ii), PS Veervanallur, against all the five innocent victimsnamely (i)Ms.The five trainees/victims, were arrested in a false case vide FIRNo.161/10 dated 15.08.10 of PS ? Veeravanallur.The three female and two maletrainees/victims remained in Judicial Custody till 24.08.10 and 25.08.10respectively.These five trainees have undergone the public shame and suffering ofbeing imprisoned for 8/9 days with common criminals for no fault of theirs.Therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may advise the Tamil Nadu Govt. to grantadequate compensation to all the five trainees/victims, for trauma they hadsuffered in jail and the defamation in the eye of the known as well as otherpublic persons.The witnesses have not been subjected to any cross-examination.3.The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.It was subsequently transferred to Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelveli City who laid the finalreport against the petitioners.The same was taken on file in CC No.343 of2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.To quash thesaid proceedings, 4 out of the 5 accused have filed this Criminal OriginalPetition.4.According to the petitioners, when they went to the police station,neither the Inspector of Police nor the Sub Inspector of Police wereavailable.After obtaining the telephone number of the S.I of Police, theywere about to leave the police station.At that time, the fifth respondentwas coming towards the police station.She said to be known to the firstpetitioner.She, therefore, invited all the team members to have a cup ofcoffee with her.When they waiting for the coffee to be served, the sixthrespondent, who was the in-charge Inspector of Police, arrived.When hebecame aware of the purpose of their visit, his attitude changed.Based onhis information, the seventh respondent who was the then DeputySuperintendent of Police S.Ramu arrived.Since by then darkness set in, thepetitioners wanted to leave the police station.But they were not allowed toleave the police station.They were detained and then taken to the houseof the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.Only then, the team membersrealized that they have been implicated in a criminal case and also arrested.They were remanded to judicial custody.The were granted bail only after 10days.The petitioners thereafter filed Crl OP(MD) No.10130 of 2010 forquashing the F.I.R. But, the said criminal original petition was renderedinfructuous in view of the filing of the final report.Therefore, they filedCrl OP(MD)No.11303 for quashing the final report.Crl OP(MD)Nos.11348 and 12006 of 2010 were also filed seeking transfer of investigation.The saidpetitions were allowed on 28.09.2010 and the investigation was transferredfrom the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station to DeputySuperintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelvei City.Since the third respondent also filed a final report implicating the teammembers and the same was taken on file by the learned Trial Magistrate in CCNo.343 of 2012, the present criminal original petition was filed for quashingthe said proceedings.Hendri Tiphagne, the learned counsel for the petitioners arguedwith considerable force and and passion.He raised very many contentions.NHRC has been arrayed as the eighth respondent in this petition.The conclusions and recommendations of the NHRC are as follows:The three entries cannot be correct at thesame time.(para 8.4 ? 8.6, 8.16-8.19).The obtaining of correct addresses from the five accused persons aftersustained interrogation and confusing replies from 5 trainees would take atleast 30/40 minutes.(Para-6.10.1).The 5 Trainees, went inside the PS Veeravanallur much earlier than made outby the Police (Para 8.12-16 & 8.18), ie., earlier than 20.00 hrs, which makesthe trainees version of timings credible.(Para-8.17).WSI-Reselin was earlier posted in PS Tirupavanan, District Manamadurai andwas acquainted with Shri Gnana Thiraviyam, one of the male trainees whileworking there.WSI Roslyn has falsely denied her earlier acquaintance withShri.Gyana dhiraviam.(Para ? 9.11)The situation at PS Veeravanallur at the time of the stated incidentie.20.00 hrs was not such that anyone had to rescue WSI-Roselin from theclutches of 5 accused trainees.(8.4-8.6)The meeting of 5 accused persons/victims with WSI-Roselin in the evening of15/8/2010 was cordial and friendly.But the situation changed at about 2045hrs with the arrival of Inspector/SHO-Murugeshan and SDPO/Cheranmahadevi ? S Ramu, (para 7.9 ? 12, 8.10).The Police did not inform the arrested trainees about the grounds of arrest.Only the Judicial Magistrate Cheranmahadevi, told them about the offenceunder which they were arrested.(Para ? 7.13, 9.13)The required ingredients of sections 170/353/416/506(i) IPC of FIR No.161/10PS Veeravanallur, are not satisfactorily fulfilled.This is discussed indetail in Xssue No.1?of this report.(para 8.1 ? 8.22)The trainees were implicated in a false by the Police due to some reasonconnected to their enquiry into the allegation of torture of accused Suresh.The detailed firs CD made out on 15/0/10 by the IO does not mentionthe presence of the two independent witnesses at the time of the allegedincident.Though there are five accused and only four of them arebefore this Court, the benefit of this order will enure in favour of the nonpetitioning accused Ms.Bharathi also.18.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, Crime Branch CID, Tirunelveli City.6.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli District.

Cited provisions: Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code