SI to pay Rs 1L fine for arrest of man following wife’s complaint

The complainant, L Arul Rajh, an engineer running a training institute in the city, had married Vaishnavi in September 2010. Three years later, she filed a complaint at the All Women police station at T Nagar charging Arul and his family members of harassing her over dowry. The next day, personnel from the station came to his residence to conduct inquiries with him and his mother. The couple also underwent counselling.

But Vaishnavi urged the police to arrest him, following which Arul and his family approached the Madras High Court with an anticipatory bail plea. Though the case was referred for mediation, the efforts failed and the case was referred back to the court. When it came up for hearing on December 11, 2013, the court dismissed the petition after recording the statement from the government advocate that the complaint was probed and closed.

However, on December 28, SI M Jayalakshmi came to Arul’s office and asked him to accompany her to the station for an inquiry. There, he was arrested and produced before Metropolitan Magistrate, who remanded him to custody.

The sub inspector maintained that the arrest was following yet another complaint from Vaishnavi raising harassment charges against Arul, adding that the police had ample power to arrest Arul because a cognisable offence was made out. He was arrested for further investigation, Jayalakshmi added.

But dismissing the contention, SHRC member D Jayachandran held that the official failed to apply her mind as to how she could entertain a similar ground, as she herself had closed the earlier complaint which was informed to the HC.

The alleged incident that happened on December 25 would make out only an offence under section 506 (ii) of IPC (criminal intimidation) which cannot be taken cognisance by the All Women Police Station. Instead, it should have been referred to the T Nagar police station.

The arrest was unnecessary, and was done in order to satisfy Vaishnavi, said the commission, adding that this violated the guidelines laid down by courts including the Supreme Court on dealing with matrimonial disputes. Holding that the human rights of the husband was violated by the official, the commission recommended action against SI Jayalakshmi.