The main legal point established is that the writ of certiorari is issued to correct errors of jurisdiction, and the protection of human rights is a fundamental aspect of the legal framework.

JUDGMENT

B.R.Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, Rajib Kumar Behera, the then S.I. of Police (IO in Aska PS Case No. 9 of 2013), has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Odisha Human Rights Commission, Bhubaneswar in OHRC Case No.1650 of 2013 under Annexure-1, and further seeks direction to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no.4-Minakshi Pattnaik, being the complainant before the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC), filed a petition on 22.05.2013 making certain allegations against the present writ petitioner and his staff, who have been harassing and inflicting atrocities on her and her family members. She specifically alleged that on 04/05.05.2013, some police personnel came to her house at 2.00 A.M. in the night and forcibly took her husband to the police station and tortured him physically and mentally.

2.1 On receipt of such complaint dated 22.05.2013, copy of the same was sent to Superintendent of Police, Ganjam with a request to get the matter enquired into and submit a factual report to the Commission. In response to the same, a report was received, which was also sent to opposite party no.4 for her information and response. In the said report it was mentioned that the allegations made by opposite party no.4 are found to be false. The report which was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam would show that he had conducted the enquiry through Bichitrananda Samal, Ex-IIC, Aska Police Station, who is the same police officer, who was inquiry officer of the case. Considering the lacuna in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam and the allegations made in the complaint being serious in nature, even after five years have lapsed, the Commission thought it proper to cause an independent enquiry to the allegations. Accordingly, requested the Addl. D.G. of Policecum-Director Investigation, OHRC to entrust the inquiry to any of the officers at his disposal. Consequently, inquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Investigation Wing of the Commission, who submitted report to the Commission and in order to give an opportunity of hearing before passing any order, notice was issued to Bichitrananda Samal, the then IIC, Aska police station and the petitioner (Rajib Kumar Behera, I.O. in Aska P.S. Case No.9 of 2013) to appear in person before the Commission on 19.11.2019.

2.2 Pursuant to such notice, the petitioner appeared before the Commission on 13.12.2019 and copies of the inquiry report of the investigation wing of OHRC was supplied to him. But he took a plea that opposite party no.4 had paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to one Manjula Bahadur with an assurance to provide government job to the daughter of opposite party no.4 in the railway department on oral agreement. Even after lapse of assured time, there was failure on the part of Manjula Bahadur to provide job. Therefore, on 22.10.2012 evening at about 6.00 P.M., opposite party no.4 came to Raghunath Nagar with an auto rickshaw and with dishonest intention lifted the CBZ Xtreme motor cycle of Manjula Bahadur, without her knowledge and consent, while it was parked in front of the house of Raghunath Choudhury at Raghunath Nagar, Aska. Opposite party no.4 also threatened with dire consequences to Manjula Bahadur and demanded to return the cash she paid to her. On examination of Majula Bahadur, her son and other witnesses, the petitioner registered the case. But opposite party no.4 was absconded from the locality and this Court in BLAPL No. 1358 of 2013 granted bail and accordingly she was released on bail in obedience to the order of the High Court. Therefore, being aggrieved by registration of theft case against opposite party no.4 by Manjula Bahadur, she filed false case against the petitioner.

2.3 On the basis of above reply given by the petitioner and the FIR lodged, the same was referred to opposite party no.4 for her response