The main legal point established is the distinction between violations of human rights and offences arising out of human rights violation, and the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Court to try such offences.

The petition is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in P.R.C.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur.

2. Therespondent/complainant preferred a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, which was formerly the Human Rights Court, under Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act r/w Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the entire records in the case was sent to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur which was notified as the Human Rights Court in the District of Thanjavur. The latter chose to send the entire case records to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur to adhere to the committal proceedings, as the Human Rights Court was not vested with the power to take up the private complaint directly on file without committal proceedings.

3. Thesum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioner/accused herein, who was serving as Station House Officer at Thanjavur Town East Police Station, entertained a false complaint given by one Ashokkumar in connection with the introduction of one Sethu Ramachandran by the complainant to the said Ashokkumar and in the guise of such a complaint preferred by Ashokkumar, the complainant was forcibly taken by the accused to the police station on 19.04.2003. The accused and his subordinates tortured the complainant to give a cheque and put his signature in stamp papers. The complainant was not given even food by the accused. The accused tortured and harassed the complainant for eight long hours on 19.04.2003 in order to obtain a cheque and his signature in stamped papers. The accused let off the complainant only in the evening of 19.04.2003 after forcibly obtaining his signature in two stamp papers dated 28.03.2003. The accused violated the fundamental rights of the complainant in keeping him in illegal custody. Further, the accused committed custodial violence by torturing and harassing the complainant on 19.04.2003.

4. With the above allegation, the complainant has sought criminal action as against the accused for an offence under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the torture and harassment meted out to the complainant.

5. As the committal proceedings are in progress, the present petition has been filed by the accused seeking quashment of the whole proceedings in P.R.C.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanajavur.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would vehemently submit that any complaint regarding the violation of human rights shall be submitted only before the State Commission constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. No private complaint would lie as against the public servant. The protection given under the Human Rights Act for the public servant will be in peril, if such a private complaint is entertained by the Judicial Magistrate. The private complaint filed by the complainant has no sanction of law. He would further contend that the entire gamut of facts and circumstances spoken to by the complainant in the private complaint does not reflect violation of any human rights. On that score also the complainant cannot prosecute the Inspector of Police, who was just performed his duty on receipt of complaint against the complainant. Therefore, the whole proceedings which culminated in P.R.C.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur may be quashed, he would lastly submit.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that the Human Rights Commission constituted under the Human Rights Act, of course, has the power to enquire into the violations of human rights alleged against a public servant on the basis of the complaint given by an aggrieved person. But the plenary power of the criminal Courts to entertain the complaint alleging commission of criminal offence h