This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in H.R.C.No.1 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The first petitioner is the Correspondent of a Private School and the second petitioner was working as the helper maid in the said school. They filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the private complaint lodged by a respondent/complainant, who is the parent of a student of their school. The complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, (Act 10 of 1994) alleging that the petitioners ordered the son of the respondent, who is studying in their school at fifth standard to clean the toilet, which is the violation under Section 12(C) and 12 (D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and threatened him not to disclose the said incident to anybody. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, (Act 10 of 1994) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., against which the Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

3. Mr. N. Ananthapadmanaban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is not maintainable since the complaint was filed under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, (Act 10 of 1994), read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. and no penal provision attracts in the said complaint, and if there is any human rights violation, as per the section amounting the violation can be lodged before the Human Rights Commission either by the victim or by any one on behalf of the victim. Chapter-III of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, deals with the power of Human Rights Commission and Chapter-IV deals with the enquiry procedure of the State Human Rights Commission. However, the petitioner choose the wrong forum for lodging the private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Section 12(C) and 12(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.14 of 2008 and after committal proceedings, the case was taken on file in H.R.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, instead of referring the case before the Human Rights Commission. Hence, the complaint itself is bad in law.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. On perusal of the entire complaint filed by the respondent, it is clear that the complaint did not cause any penal offence implicating the petitioners in the above said crime for the offences punishable under Section 12(C) and 12(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. Hence, the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Protection Act, (Act 10 of 1994) before the learned Judicial Magistrate is not sustainable in law. In fact, Section 12(C) and 12(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is not penal provisions. The above said Sections falls under Chapter-III of the said Act, which describes the Functions and Power of the Commission and Sections 12(C) and 12(D) of the said Act is a recommendatory nature, if at all any human rights violation that can be recommended for the remedial measure for the purpose of adjudication.

6. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Goverdhan Reddy v. Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, reported in 1998 Cr.L.J. 561, decided the issue on the ground that if any penal provision is attracted, the complaint cannot be instituted straight away before the Special Court, but it has to be instituted only before the Magistrate Court. Thereafter, after following the committal procedure, the Special Court shall try the case.

7. To support his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner