CHENNAI: As per the Dowry Prohibition Rules, only a Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate a complaint lodged under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the State Human Rights Commission has said.

Recommending that a city woman Inspector of Police should pay Rs. 1.50 lakhs as compensation in a case relating to human rights violation, the Commission Member, S. Sambandham, wondered how the inspector conducted the investigation when the rules clearly assigned the role to a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Mr. Sambandham said the Tamil Nadu Government should initially pay the compensation. The amount should be recovered from the salary of inspector Mrs. Marimuthu of the All-Women Police Station (AWPS), Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk. He also recommended that the Director-General of Police take departmental action against the inspector for the human rights violation committed by her.

He said one of the complainants before the Commission was said to be a diabetic and as a result gangrene formed in his leg. He was also operated upon. In spite of this, the inspector did not allow him to take treatment or medicine when he was in the police station. The orders of the Madras High Court on the anticipatory bail applications of the complainants made it clear that not only were they harassed, but also driven from pillar to post on several occasions.

J. Samuel and his parents residing at Adambakkam here complained to the Commission that in February 2004 when they were in the AWPS in connection with a complaint from his (Samuel) wife under the Dowry Prohibition Act, they were treated badly. Even when their lawyer said Mr. Samuel had filed a petition before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights, the inspector replied she was not bothered about it.

Mr. Sambandham said if the inspector had impartially enquired into the matter, she would have verified the petition also. The complaint by Ms. Princy was later withdrawn.

He said the Dowry Prohibition Rules came into force on February 4, 2004. As per rule 2(e), the police officer had been defined as DSP. Further, prosecution should be recommended or resorted to only if all other measures were found ineffective.

The complaint should be scrutinised and an enquiry conducted to collect evidence from the parties on the genuineness of the complaint.

The inspector should pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to each of the three complainants, the Commission said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |