C.R. Badhran v. Radhakrishna Pillai P.K. and Kerala State Human Rights Commission

WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -1- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MAY 2021 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **0** **C.R. BADHRAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.RESIDING AT TC-31/650 (1), ASWATHY BUILDING, S.N.NAGAR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024** **BY ADVS. G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI P.K., KRISHNA,TC 31/727(I), MOONNAM, MANAKKAL,PETTTAH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024** **2 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TURBO PLUS TOWER, PMG ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC FOR R2** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2021 ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** Instant writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in HRMP No.4730/2018/TVM dated 27.02.2020 (Exhibit-P4). 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the 1[st] respondent herein has lodged a complaint regarding removal of soil from the manhole, before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pettah Police Station contending false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. When the police made an attempt to resolve the dispute, the 1[st] respondent did not accede to the same. On the other hand, he has forwarded a complaint to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission has numbered it as HRMP No.4730/2018/TVM. 3. After considering the complaint, Human Rights Commission has passed an order directing the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, to take steps to register FIR and take legal proceedings thereto against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P4" WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -3- ## 4. In support of the prayer sought for, petitioner has, inter alia, raised the following grounds: - A. The 2[nd] respondent without differentiating the remedy provided to the 1[st] respondent under the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the procedure established by law, has passed Ext.P4 by erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and authority vested on it - B. If the police fails to investigate a case arising from a First Information Report lodged before it, disclosing commission of a cognizable offence it is open to the informant/complainant to move the Magistrate concerned for appropriate order u/s.156 CrPC or may file a complaint and obtain appropriate orders for issuance of process against the accused for trial. Having failed to do so the 1[st] respondent has found a novel device of moving the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, 2[nd] respondent. Such a complaint ought not to have been entertained by the 2[nd] respondent when remedy is provided to the aggrieved party under the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the procedure established by law. - C. The 2[nd] respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to direct the Superintendent of Police to take steps to register FIR and conduct investigation since the 1[st] respondent has an alternative remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Anandawardhan Vs. Pandurang (2006) 2 Crimes 165, 2005 (11) SCC 195 held that "the law provides that if the police fails to investigate a case arising from a First Information Report lodged before it disclosing commission of a WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -4- cognizable offence, it is open to the informant/complainant to move the Magistrate concerned for appropriate order u/s. 156 CrPC or may file a complaint and obtain appropriate orders for issuance of process against the accused for trial”. D. While Passing Ext.P4, the 2[nd] respondent has not properly considered Ext.P3 complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has recorded the statements of complainant and accused and found no substance which constitutes a cognizable offence and moreover the 1[st] respondent himself deposed that he has no intention to proceed with the allegations levelled in the complaint. Once the statement of the complainant was recorded by an investigating officer, the same cannot be dispelled by evasive denial of the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent ought to have found that the complaint of the 1[st] respondent is devoid of any merit and an alternative remedy is open to him to approach the concerned magistrate for redressal of his grievance. ## 5. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.10.2020. ## Relevant paragraphs of the same read thus: - “9. I stoutly deny the averments contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition. It is true that the petitioner has removed the sewage waste from the manhole situated in the road and dumped the same right in my front gate and the incident was very clearly narrated in my complaint produced in the writ petition and marked as Exhibit P1. Consequent upon the rain, the sewage waste started to melt and flow into my compound. Myself and petitioner were called to the police in connection with the enquiry pursuant to my complaint and the unfortunate incidents occurred WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -5- only due to the biased attitude on the part of the Station House Officer, when I requested him to register a case against the petitioner. I have not misbehaved in the police station as averred by the petitioner. Exhibit P2 was submitted as a counter blast to the complaints submitted by me. It is being aggrieved by the inhuman and much prejudiced attitude on the part of the Station House Officer, who was expected to act impartially and fairly, I was constrained to submit the complaint before the second respondent. Having convinced the falsity of allegations made in Exhibit P2, police did not take any action in the said complaint. The contentions raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of writ petition are also false and hence denied. Police is bound to register FIR in case of cognizable offences in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. [2013 (4) KLT 552]. 10. I submit that the Compact Disks and photos evidencing the threat posed by the petitioner submitted by me before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sanghumugham were forwarded to Sri.Sajikumar, SHO, Pettah Police Station on 7/09/2018 along with a report with due acknowledgment to take further legal action in the matter. Later I came to know that the said records were found missing and I believe that the said records were destroyed while Sri.Sajukumar was working as the Station House Officer under the influence of the petitioner. A copy of the CD and the photographs were also submitted before the second respondent while submitting Exhibit P1 application and it is after considering the said materials, the second respondent has issued Exhibit P4 order. In view of the grave allegations raised against the SHO, Sri.Sajukumar, it is highly necessary in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings initiated against the Station House Officer as directed in Exhibit P4 order. 11. Though it was directed in Exhibit P4 order that the District Police WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -6- Chief shall conduct an enquiry directly by hearing all the concerned parties and examining the documents, he deputed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Cell to conduct the enquiry and submit a report, and in the report ACP covered up all the grave allegations against the errant officer and on the other hand recommended that the officer shall be directed to behave respectfully to senior citizens, ladies and children who approach the police for aid. In the circumstances, I submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (L&O), Thiruvananthapuram City on 30/07/2020 requesting to ensure fair and impartial enquiry in the matter. True copy of the representation submitted by me before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (L&O), Thiruvananthapuram City, dated 30/07/2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). 12. None of the grounds raised in the writ petition are maintainable. Petitioner has no grievance regarding the direction issued to the District Police Chief to conduct enquiry as against the Station House Officer. True copy of the representation submitted by me before the Director General of Police, dated 10/08/2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(e). Despite the submission of Exhibit R1(e) representation, police are not taking any action in the matter. The threat and harassment at the instance of the petitioner is still continuing. Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The question that arises for consideration is, whether Exhibit-P4 order in HRMP No.4730/2018/TVM dated 27.02.2020 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission requires any interference. The deliberation of facts made above would make it clear that the 1[st] respondent has filed a WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -7- complaint alleging that the complaint lodged before the Pettah Police Station with regard to dumping of septic waste in front of his house by his neighbour Mr. Badhran was not registered and further that the Sub Inspector of Police viz., one Mr.Sajukumar had misbehaved with the 1[st] respondent and insulted him. It was further stated in the said complaint that the brother of Mr.Badhran/the writ petitioner viz., one Mr.Parthasarathi has obstructed him and used filthy words. But the police, in spite of the complaint, have not taken any action. 8. It is also evident that the District Police Superintendent has conducted an enquiry as regards the allegations made through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shangumugham. However, it seems the 1[st] respondent informed that he is not interested in proceeding with the complaint and it was thereupon that no action was initiated. Any how, the Human Rights Commission, after assimilating the factual situations, found that the Sub Inspector of Police has failed in his duty to register a case and thereupon issued the following directions: “1) Based on the holding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalithakumari Vs. State of U.P, that in the case of complaints where cognizable offences are proved prima facie, the police officers are bound to register F.I.R and proceed with legal action, in the complaint submitted by Radhakrishna Pillai, the complainant in this case against Parthasarathy and others on 14-5-2018 and against Bhadran on 5-9-2018, the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram city shall take necessary steps to register F.I.R and proceed with legal action. 2) The Commission hereby directs that the District Police WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -8- Chief, Thiruvananthapuram city shall directly conduct an enquiry to find out whether or not there had been any omission on the part of Sajukumar, S.H.O, Pettah in taking necessary action in the aforementioned complaints by examining all parties and records, and if it is found that there had been any such omission on the part of the respondent, appropriate legal action shall be taken.” 9. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that if the 1[st] respondent was really aggrieved by the non-registration of crime by Sub Inspector of Police, his remedy was to approach the concerned Magistrate Court by filing a complaint and the approach of the 1[st] respondent by submitting a complaint to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission cannot be sustained under law. 10. In order to analyse the situation, let us consider Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which speaks about the functions of the Human Rights Commission. Section 12 reads thus: - "The Commission shall perform all or any of the following - functions, namely:— - (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any court, into complaint of— - (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or - (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; - (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court; - (c) visit,notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -9- treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government; - (d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation; - (e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; - (f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation; - (g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights; - (h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; - (i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights; - (j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.” ## 11. Section 13 of the Act, 1993 speaks about the powers of the ## Commission relating to inquiries and it reads thus: “(1) The Commission shall, while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document; - (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; - (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Commission shall have power to require WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -10- any person, subject to any privilege which may be claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Commission, may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject matter of the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information within the meaning of section 176 and section 177 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) The Commission or any other officer, not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer, specially authorised in this behalf by the Commission may enter any building or place where the Commission has reason to believe that any document relating to the subject matter of the inquiry may be found, and may seize any such document or take extracts or copies therefrom subject to the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in so far as it may be applicable. (4) The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court and when any offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of the Commission, the Commission may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded to him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (5) Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) Where the Commission considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, transfer any complaint filed or pending before it to the State Commission of the State from which the complaint arises, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of this Act: PROVIDED that no such complaint shall be transferred unless the same is one respecting which the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the same. (7) Every complaint transferred under sub-section (6) shall be dealt with and disposed of by the State Commission as if it were a complaint initially filed before it.” WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -11- ## 12. Section 14 of the Act, 1993 speaks about investigation and it ## reads thus: “(1) The Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to the inquiry, utilise the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central Government or any State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (2) For the purpose of investigating into any matter pertaining to the inquiry, any officer or agency whose services are utilised under sub-section (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission,- (a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him; (b) require the discovery and production of any document; and (c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from any office. (3) The provisions of section 15 shall apply in relation to any statement made by a person before any officer or agency whose services are utilised under subsection (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission. (4) The officer or agency whose services are utilised under sub-section (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission within such period as may be specified by the Commission in this behalf. (5) The Commission shall satisfy itself about the correctness of the facts stated and the conclusion, if any, arrived at in the report submitted to it under sub-section (4) and for this purpose the Commission may make such inquiry (including the examination of the person or persons who conducted or assisted in the investigation) as it thinks fit.” 13. Section 17 of the Act speaks about inquiry into the complaints and it reads thus: “The Commission while inquiring into the complaints of violations of human rights may— (i) call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority or organisation subordinate thereto within such WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -12- time as may be specified by it: PROVIDED that— (a) if the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own; (b) if, on receipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly; (ii) without prejudice to anything contained in clause (i), if it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate an inquiry.” ## 14. Section 18 of the Act, 1993 speaks about steps during enquiry and after inquiry and it reads thus: “18. Steps during and after inquiry.—The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:— (a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority— (i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (iii) to take such further action as it may think fit; (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary; (c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; (e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -13- month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission; (f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.” 15. Section 21 of the Act, 1993 speaks about constitution of State ## Human Rights Commission and it reads thus: “(1) A State Government may constitute a body to be known as the..................(name of the State) Human Rights Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to, a State Commission under this Chapter. (2) The State Commission shall, with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification specify, consist of-- (a) a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court; (b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or District Judge in the State with a minimum of seven years experience as District Judge; (c) one Member to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights. (3) There shall be a Secretary who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State Commission and shall, subject to control of the Chairperson, exercise all administrative and financial powers of the State Commission. (4) The headquarters of the State Commission shall be at such place as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (5) A State Commission may inquire into violation of human rights only in respect of matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution: PROVIDED that if any such matter is already being inquired into by the Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force, the State Commission shall not inquire into the said matter: (6) Two or more State Governments may, with the consent of a Chairperson or Member of a State WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -14- Commission, appoint such Chairperson or, as the case may be, such Member of another State Commission simultaneously if such Chairperson or Member consents to such appointment: PROVIDED that every appointment made under this sub-section shall be made after obtaining the recommendations of the Committee referred to in subsection (1) of section 22 in respect of the State for which a common Chairperson or Member, or both, as the case may be, is to be appointed. (7) Subject to the provisions of section 12, the Central Government may, by order, confer upon the State Commission the functions relating to human rights being discharged by the Union territories, other than Union territory of Delhi, Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union territory of Ladakh. (8) The functions relating to human rights in case of Union territory of Delhi, Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union territory of Ladakh shall be dealt with by the Commission.” ## 16. Reading of the above said provisions makes it clear that the Human Rights Commission is vested with ample powers to identify as to whether there is any violation of human rights. If there is any such violation, the Commission is at liberty to step in and do the necessary. Here is a case whether the State Human Rights Commission has found that the Sub Inspector of Police, Pettah Police Station has failed to register an FIR, since the allegations levelled by the 1[st] respondent was cognizable in nature. The issue involved was considered by the Commission bearing in mind as to whether there was violation of human rights, in not registering a crime, and not that the 1[st] respondent had any remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate, having the police not registered a crime. It was in that regard, the State Human Rights Commission, by the impugned order, has ordered necessary inquiry. WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -15- 17. The Commission accordingly, has found that there is prima facie, cognizable offence and the police was under the obligation to register an FIR and to take consequential legal action. Viewed the directions of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in that angle, it cannot be said that the directions issued are illegal or arbitrary or that the Commission has no power to issue any such directions. 18. Taking into account all the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with Exhibit-P4 impugned order dated 27.02.2020, in exercise of the discretionary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no patent arbitrariness or illegality, justifying us to do so. In the result, this writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. **Sd/S.Manikumar Chief Justice** **Sd/Shaji P.Chaly Judge** **vpv** ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -16- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12756/2020** ANNEXURE/EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1||A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED| |---|---|---| |||08.05.2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT| |||BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE PETTAH POLICE| |||STATION| |EXHIBIT P2||A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY| |||THE PETITIONER DATED 16.07.2018 BEFORE| |||THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,| |||VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH| |||TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE| |EXHIBIT P3||A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON THE| |||COMPLAINT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT| |||SUBMITTED BY THE AST. COMMISSIONER OF| |||POLICE, SHANGUMUKHAM SUB-DIVISION,| |||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 29.05.2018| |||BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH| |||TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE| |EXHIBIT P4||A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN HRMP NO| |||4730/2018/TVM DATED 27.02.2020 OF THE| |||KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION| |||WITH TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH LANAGUAGE| |EXHIBIT P5||A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| |||HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ANADAWARDHAN| |||VS. PANDURAG REPORTED AS 2005 (11) SCC| |||195| |EXHIBIT R1|(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY| |||THE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR OFFICER BEFORE| |||THE SECOND RESPONDNET DATED 20.03.2019| |EXHIBIT R1|(B)|TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R1| |||A| |EXHIBIT R1|(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1519| |||OF 2020 OF PATTAH POLICE STATION, DATED| |||07.08.2020| |EXHIBIT R1|(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| |||SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT| |||BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF| |||POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, DATED| |||30.07.2020| WP(C) NO. 12756 OF 2020 -17- EXHIBIT R1 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DATED 10.08.2020