ORDER : N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 1. Aggrieved over the finding of the State Human Rights Commission, dismissing the complaint filed by the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts leading to file this Writ Petition is as follows: 2(a) On 16.08.2013 at about 07.15 p.m. while the Writ Petitioner was standing along with his friends, the Second Respondent Sub-Inspector of Police took him to the Police Station and beat him with lathi and also kicked him. Thereby the Writ Petitioner sustained injuries besides the Third Respondent another Sub-Inspector of Police also abused him and made him to sit in the Police Station. Thereafter, uncle of the Writ Petitioner came to the Police Station and took him to his home. After that the Writ Petitioner along with his relatives went to the Police Station at about 9.45 p.m. to question the Second Respondent about the assault made by him. At that time the Third Respondent and some other home guards were present in the Police Station. Thereafter, the Second Respondent came to the Police Station and used abusive words against the women standing there and beat the Writ Petitioner's elder brother with lathi and also pulled the saree of one Ms. Sumithra and also caught hold the hand of one Ms. Sarasu besides kicked the Writ Petitioner's father Kumar. The Third Respondent also beat the other persons with lathi. Thereafter, the Respondents themselves inflicted self injuries and also destroyed some materials in the Police Station and filed a complaint against the Writ Petitioner and others in Cr.No.233 of 2013 u/s 147, 341, 294(b), 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 I.P.C., thereby the respondents violated the human rights of the Writ Petitioner. 3. It is the case of the Respondents that while the First Respondent was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, he has registered 16 cases against the persons who involved the sand theft. On 16.08.2013 at about 8.15 p.m. in respect of sand theft, he has called the Writ Petitioner for enquiry, as it is found that the Writ Petitioner was an informer to the sand mafia about the police movement. Writ Petitioner's elder brother is also one of the sand smuggler. After enquiry the Writ Petitioner was let off. Thereafter, a mob came to the Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. and attacked the Third Respondent and destroyed the materials in the Police Station. Writ Petitioner's elder brother is also one of the sand smuggler. After enquiry the Writ Petitioner was let off. Thereafter, a mob came to the Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. and attacked the Third Respondent and destroyed the materials in the Police Station. On the basis of his complaint, case has been registered in Cr.No.233/2013 u/s 147, 341, 294(b), 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 I.P.C., Hence it is the contention of the Respondents that the allegations of the human right violations, abuse and assault are false. 4. Before the Commission, the Writ Petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 5 as witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to prove the allegations. On the side of the Respondent R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined. The Learned Member of the Commission on thorough analysis of the entire facts has dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the same the We heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner during the admission of this Writ Petition. present Writ Petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submitted that the Commission has not appreciated the facts properly. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly prove the human rights violations. The evidence adduced on the side of the Writ Petitioner has simply ignored by the Commission. Hence, submitted that the finding of the Commission is certainly to be interfered by this Court. 6. We have perused the Order passed by the State Human Rights Commission. The main allegation of the Writ Petitioner is that on 16.08.2013 at about 7.15 p.m. while he was standing in front of the shop along with one Manikandan, Sathish and Boobalan, the Second Respondent Sub-Inspector of Police took him to the Police Station and beat him with lathi and also kicked him, thereby Writ Petitioner sustained injuries. Thereafter, his uncle Mr. Manohar came to the Police Station and took him to the house. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner along with his family members went to the Police Station to question the act of the Second Respondent. At that time also the Second Respondent beat the Writ Petitioner's brother, father and also abused and molested female members of the family. 7. It is to be noted that it is the specific allegation of the Writ Petitioner that he was severely beaten by the Respondent police when he was taken to the Police Station for some enquiry, thereby sustained injuries. 7. It is to be noted that it is the specific allegation of the Writ Petitioner that he was severely beaten by the Respondent police when he was taken to the Police Station for some enquiry, thereby sustained injuries. It is not the case of the Writ Petitioner that he has detained in the Police Station. Even after the alleged enquiry he was let off immediately. If really there were injuries sustained by P.W.1, the normal conduct of any human being would be rushed to the hospital to get treatment for such injuries. Whereas P.W.1 the Writ Petitioner never gone to hospital to show that he has sustained injuries. It is further to be noted that the Writ Petitioner and his family members have gone to the Police Station at about 9.45 p.m. Thereafter it appears that there were some altercation in the Police Station as a result of which, case in Cr.No.233 of 2013 for various offences under Section u/s 147, 341, 294(b), 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 I.P.C., was registered not only against the Writ Petitioner but also 12 others and the 12 other accused were arrested. The Writ Petitioner was absconding in the above Cr.No. These are all the admitted facts noted by the Commission. Though P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined, the Commission has clearly analysed evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 and come to the conclusion that they are only hearsay evidence; their evidence cannot be given importance. 8. Further, it is to be noted that the complaint also previously sent to the State Commission for Women. The State Commission after perusal of report sent by the Superintendent of Police and also having regard to the fact that the Writ Petitioner was absconding at the relevant point of time, dismissed the above said complaint on the ground that there was no prima facie made out in the above complaint. This is also taken note of by the State Commission. 9. It is the definite case of the Respondent that the Petitioner was called for enquiry since it is found out that he appears to be informer to the sand mafia against whom 16 cases were registered in the Police Station and immediately he was let off. Further, the Writ Petitioner's brother is also one of the accused in sand theft case. Further, the Writ Petitioner's brother is also one of the accused in sand theft case. If really the Writ Petitioner had sustained any injury as alleged by him, the same should have been substantiated by way of medical evidence. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner is also facing a criminal case filed by the Respondents. The allegation that the family members were also molested was found to be false by the State Commission for Women. There was no necessity whatsoever for the family members to assemble unlawfully in front of the Police Station at 9.45 p.m. that too after the Writ Petitioner was let off by the police. These facts clearly probablise the defence theory that the Writ Petitioner and the family members have ransacked the Police Station. Thereafter only in order to escape from the criminal liability this complaint has been filed before the State Human Rights Commission. The State Commission has analysed the entire evidence and found that the allegation has not made out. 10. On perusal of the entire Order of the State Commission it is clear that the State Human Rights Commission not only considered the evidence but also considered the conduct of the Writ Petitioner and Ex.P.1 the order passed by the State Commission for Women and come to the conclusion that the allegation made by the Writ Petitioner has not been established and held that there was no human rights violation. Since the Commission has arrived at the conclusion on the factual back ground, we do not find any material even to infer that the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission is against law without proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, the Writ Petitioner cannot be entertained for every allegation pressed into service to avoid a criminal liability and also to coerce the police machinery from discharging their official duty in prevention of crime in the society. Hence, we do not find any merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.