Adyar SI in the dock for fabricating records

CHENNAI: A sub-inspector in the city is in the dock for fabricating the police records to show he had registered the first information report (FIR) in a burglary.
Pulling up the SI, A Joshuva, the state human rights commission ordered him to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation to Revathi Murali of Kasthuriba Nagar in Adyar.
Commission member AR Selvakumar who passed the order, recommended the home department to initiate disciplinary action against Joshuva as well as the then inspector (crime) and assistant commissioner of Adyar for dereliction of duty.
In her complaint, Revathi said her house had been burgled on July 25, 2008 and cash, silver items and electric materials stolen. After she intimated the police, two policemen came and made inquiries for an hour but no further action was taken.
As her husband was in hospital then, she lodged a complaint through her father. But the police refused to register it saying it was not readable, following which she gave another complaint, Revathi said.
She said that even in January that year when a burglary took place in her house the police did not register a case.
The SI, in his counter, said the complaint was given only on August 18 while the burglary took place on July 25. And he promptly registered the case on August 22, 2008, the SI said.
However, the commission wanted to verify the genuineness of his contention and ordered its investigation wing to check the relevant records at the Adyar police station.
The investigation wing verified the prsioners' search register and gave a report saying the SI's claim was false. The case number given by the SI related to a case handled by the law and order section and not the one pertaining to the Revathi's complaint, the report said.
On perusal of the case, the commission strongly condemned the SI saying, "he had deliberately fabricated the station records to show the FIR had been registered in the case of the complainant on August 22, 2008.''
The commission recommended the home department to initiate disciplinary action against the then inspector and the assistant commissioner of police, besides the SI, as the two senior officials had failed to properly check the records.