Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi and Viney Mittal JJ.
Jatt Ram
Versus
Punjab State Human Rights Commission
Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003,
Decided On : MAY 18, 2005
The Punjab State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has no power to interfere in the investigation of a case by the police or to order the cancellation of an FIR. The SHRC also has no power to entertain complaints alleging that an FIR against a complainant was wrongly recorded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were aggrieved by various orders passed by the SHRC, including orders to reinvestigate FIRs, cancel FIRs, and transfer police officers. The petitioners contended that the SHRC had no jurisdiction to pass such orders and that the orders were in violation of the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the SHRC has no power to interfere in the investigation of a case by the police or to order the cancellation of an FIR. The Court also held that the SHRC has no power to entertain complaints alleging that an FIR against a complainant was wrongly recorded.
Issues: 1. Whether the SHRC has the power to interfere in the investigation of a case by the police? 2. Whether the SHRC has the power to order the cancellation of an FIR? 3. Whether the SHRC has the power to entertain complaints alleging that an FIR against a complainant was wrongly recorded?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the SHRC has no power to interfere in the investigation of a case by the police because: a. The SHRC is a statutory body with limited powers, and its powers are defined by the Act. b. The Act does not give the SHRC the power to interfere in the investigation of a case by the police. c. The police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. d. The High Court has held that the SHRC cannot interfere with the investigation of a case by the police, even in cases where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable. 2. The Court held that the SHRC has no power to order the cancellation of an FIR because: a. The SHRC is a statutory body with limited powers, and its powers are defined by the Act. b. The Act does not give the SHRC the power to order the cancellation of an FIR. c. The power to cancel an FIR is vested in the police and the courts. 3. The Court held that the SHRC has no power to entertain complaints alleging that an FIR against a complainant was wrongly recorded because: a. The SHRC is a statutory body with limited powers, and its powers are defined by the Act. b. The Act does not give the SHRC the power to entertain complaints alleging that an FIR against a complainant was wrongly recorded. c. The power to entertain such complaints is vested in the police and the courts.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders passed by the SHRC. The Court also directed the SHRC to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- in each case to the petitioners.
Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of seven Civil Writ Petitions No. 18237 of 2003, 3665, 1371 of 2004, 4834 of 2005, 814 and 28 of 2004 alongwith Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44216-M of 2003 which was ordered to be heard alongwith Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003 filed by the same petitioner. The common thread which runs through all the writ petitions is a challenge to the various orders passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, illegal and interference in the criminal investigation as well as in the administration of criminal justice and being in violation of provisions of law. All the aforesaid orders have been passed by the same member (Sh. B.C. Rajput) of the State Commission.
2. It might be relevant to notice facts in each case; Criminal Misc. No. 44216-M of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003: On the statement of petitioner Jatt Ram, an F.I.R. No. 1 10 dated July 13, 2003 was registered at Police Station Guruharsahai against Makhan Ram and others, including one Jaswinder Singh son of Surain Singh under Sections 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The aforesaid accused persons could not be arrested at the spot. Later on, the aforesaid accused also claimed that they have been caused injuries by the petitioner party. A D.D.R. No. 21 dated July 13, 2003 was registered at their instance. The matter was inquired into by the police and the version of the aforesaid accused Makhan Ram and others was rejected by the police. On a statement made by the aforesaid accused, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, deputed Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Ferozepur to enquire into the matter. A report dated September 11, 2003 was submitted by the aforesaid Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was reported that the version of aforesaid Makhan Ram and others was false. The aforesaid accused persons filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide two separate orders dated August 22, 2003 and August 28, 2003, the prayer made by the aforesaid accused persons was rejected. The aforesaid accused persons approached this Court through Criminal Misc. No. 40013-M of 2003, seeking anticipatory bail. The said bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn by them on September 3, 2003. A copy of the order dated September 3, 2003 (Annexure P/5) shows that the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn by the aforesaid accused persons after arguing the case at length. On the same date i.e. September 3, 2003 itself, the father of Jaswinder Singh, namely, Surain Singh filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was alleged in the aforesaid complaint that on July 12, 2003, Jatt Ram and others had started illegal construction in the land of Makhan Ram and on stopping them they caused injuries to the complainant party (Surain Singhs party). It was further claimed that although an F.I.R. No. 1 10 dated July 13, 2003 had been registered on the asking of Jatt Ram and others, the police had merely recorded a D.D.R. No. 21 at the instance of complainant party and no action had been taken because the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted the investigations, favoured the opposite party.
On these allegations, the complaint in question was entertained by the Member of the State Commission and vide order dated September 3, 2003, a direction was issued marking the enquiry to be held by the Inspector General of Police (Litigation) through an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and submit a report to the Commission. A further recommendation was issued to the State Government that till the enquiry is completed "no further action will be taken against the complainant party and the police will not harass them." The afore
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
