Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
P. Navaneethan - Petitioner
Vs.
The State Human Rights Commission & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.14942 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
Decided On : 03-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.K.M. Appaji
For the Respondents: Mr. K.S. Sri Giriprasad, Mr. M. Elumalai
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and fair inquiry by the Human Rights Commission in addressing complaints of human rights violations.
Headnote:
Human Rights - Violation of Human Rights - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 13, Section 14, Section 17, Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and emphasized the powers and duties of the Human Rights Commission in inquiring into complaints, conducting investigations, and providing interim relief to victims. The court highlighted the legal obligations of the Commission and the need for a thorough and fair inquiry into complaints, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order of the State Human Rights Commission, alleging violation of human rights by the police in executing an order related to a matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission had violated the procedures outlined in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: Violation of human rights, procedural irregularities by the Human Rights Commission
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Human Rights Commission to adhere to the prescribed procedures and conduct a thorough inquiry into complaints, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal obligations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Human Rights Commission for fresh consideration.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu in SHRC case No.920 of 2015 and to quash the same.
2. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. According to the Petitioner, he is a Post-graduate (M.Com., M.Phil) working as Information Officer, Information Centre, Annamalai University Distance Education Department, Bathalgundu, Dindugal District. On 25.03.2010, he got married to one Kohila and commenced matrimonial life in his house. It appears that right from the beginning, there was a misunderstanding in existence at the instance of the in-Laws. Moreover, on 19.11.2010, his wife had left along with her parents, taking all her jewels and belongings from the matrimonial house. On 28.02.2011, a female child was born at Madurai. He filed a petition HMOP No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Theni, seeking Restitution of Conjugal right. His wife filed a complaint to counter the matrimonial proceedings and based on her complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.10 of 2013 on the file of All Women Police Station, Theni, under Sections 406, 494(b), 506(i) IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.60 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Theni.
4. Continuing further, it is the version of the Petitioner that his wife filed a petition seeking the relief of 'Divorce' from the Family Court, Chennai, praying for dissolution of marriage dated 25.03.2010. Also that, she filed M.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Sections 16, 18, 19 and 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and an order was passed on 03.09.2014.
5. It comes to be known that as against the order dated 03.09.2014 in M.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.253 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court and on 22.12.2014, the Criminal Appeal came to be dismissed whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the trial Court was confirmed.
6. In this connection, it is projected on the side of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner's wife filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Abiramapuram Police Station, to execute the order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without verifying the veracity of the complaint, the police has committed 'Violation of Human Rights'. Therefore, the Petitioner was perforced to prefer a complaint before the First Respondent/State Human Rights Commission, which was forwarded to the Second Respondent/the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004, being the superior officer of the erred Police Official.
7. It may not be out of place to make a pertinent mention that the First Respondent/Commission, on 24.02.2015 in SHRC Case No.920 of 2015, had passed an order directing the Second Respondent/the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004, after calling the complainant to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. The Petitioner is assailing the correctness of the Impugned Order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the First Respondent/Commission in this Writ Petition.
8. It is to be borne in mind that Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, speaks of 'Powers relating to Inquiries' which runs as under:
(1) The Commission shall, while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath;
(b) Discovery and production of any document
