The present intra Court appeal puts to challenge the order, dated 20.04.2016, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7320 of 2013, whereunder a learned single Judge of this Court has disposed of the writ application, filed by the petitioner appellant herein, holding that the writ petition was premature.

2. The order, dated 20.04.2016, aforementioned, was passed in a writ application, which the appellant, as the petitioner, had filed impugning the order, dated 22.01.2013, passed by the Bihar Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BHRC’) contending that though the BHRC has no power to review its own order, it (BHRC) had reviewed its order, dated 17.10.2012, by the impugned order, dated 22.01.2013, and reopened the case against the petitioner by issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (in short, ‘the Act’).

3. Having reopened the case, the BHRC, upon hearing the parties concerned, ordered, on 04.03.2013, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to recover a sum of Rs.50,000.00 from the salary of the petitioner-appellant herein and make payment of the said amount as compensation to the husband of the complainant-respondent No.11. By the order, dated 04.03.2013, aforementioned, the BHRC has also directed the petitioner-appellant’s employer to consider initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner-appellant and also lodge criminal case against him.

4. By his writ petition, the appellant sought for quashing of the order, dated 04.03.2013, whereby the BHRC had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to recover a sum of Rs.50,000.00 from the salary of the petitioner-appellant herein so as to make payment of the said amount, as compensation, to the complainant-respondent No.11 and also to consider initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner-appellant herein and lodging criminal case against him.

5. The material facts, which led to the writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under :-

(i) While on patrolling duty, as a Police Officer of Naubatpur Police Station, the writ petitioner claims to have received, on 15.05.2012, at about 8 PM, information from confidential source that one Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh was keeping arms without holding licence therefor. Having informed his superior authorities about the information, the petitioner claims to have proceeded, accompanied by the members of his force, for the house of accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh and raided the said house.

(ii) When the house of the accused was raided, the accused was, according to the writ petitioner, found sleeping and, by conducting a search of the house, the petitioner claims to have recovered a country-made pistol with two live cartridges under the pillow of the accused’s bed and seized the same by making a seizure list in the presence of witnesses. The accused was, then, taken into custody.

(iii) Having returned to Naubatpur Police Station, the petitioner, on 15.05.2012 itself, handed over the accused, along with the seizure list, to the Office-in-Charge of the said Police Station, who, on the basis of the written report so lodged by the petitioner, registered Naubatpur Police Station Case No.120 of 2012, under Sections 25(1-h)a/26 Arms Act, 1959, against accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh and handed over the investigation to one Arun Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police. The accused was, thereafter, forwarded to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur. On 16.05.2012, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

(iv) On 06.06.2012, respondent No. 11 herein, Smt. Nirupama Singh, wife of accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh, presented a complaint before BHRC. On 16.06.2012, accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh was granted bail in Naubatpur Police Station Case No. 120 of 2012 aforementioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna. On 27.06.2012, the City Superintendent of Police (West), Patna, supervised the ca