Back
2016 Supreme(Manipur) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Shri Keisham Rojenkumar Singh, S/o Late K. Birchandra Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Manipur represented by the Secretary/Commissioner, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.306 OF 2013
Decided On : 20-06-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. N. Mahendra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Athouba Khaidem, G.A., Mr. Kh. Shanta, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Manipur State Commission for Women has the power to entertain complaints and conduct inquiries, but it does not have the authority to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Manipur State Commission for Women - Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 - Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint case pending before the Manipur State Commission for Women, arguing that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission had the power to entertain the complaint and direct the parties to appear in order to ascertain the substance of the complaint, as provided under Section 10(2) of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to admit and inquire into individual domestic disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006, and concluded that while the Commission had the power to entertain complaints and conduct inquiries, it did not have the authority to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to submit applications before the Commission for recalling the warrant of arrest issued against them, and ordered that they should not be arrested until their applications are disposed of by the Commission.
Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kh. Shanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India was registered on the application filed by the petitioners who are members of the same family, praying for quashing the complaint case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Manipur State Commission for Women at Lamphelpat which was instituted on a petition submitted by respondent No. 3 in this case, on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition as submitted by the petitioners:
3. The respondent No. 3 claiming to have been married to the petitioner No. 3 on 11.01.2013 following their elopement on 10.01.2013 filed a complaint petition on 06.03.2013 before the Chairperson, Manipur State Commission for Women, Lamphelpat, Imphal alleging that from the very night of their marriage itself she was harshly ill-treated by the 2 (two) aunts of the petitioner No. 3, and on the following day also, the petitioner No. 1 i.e. father of the petitioner No. 3 kicked her and the two aunts of the petitioner No. 3 attempted to physically assault her. That, the ill treatment did not end there, but continued with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 using words against her which are insulting and hurting and when she was pregnant in course of time and her mother-in-law (i.e. petitioner No. 2) came to know the same, her pregnancy was aborted by force without her consent. Unable to bear such constant torture and harassment, she left for the parental home of her mother in the morning of 02.03.2013 and from there, her father brought her to her parents home in the evening of the same day. The State Women Commission (which shall, thereafter, be referred to respondent No. 2) after admitting the complaint issued summons to the petitioners asking them to appear before it on 04.04.2013. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and the learned counsel representing them undertook to file power of Attorney on the next date fixed for hearing i.e. on 08.04.2013. Their learned counsel, thereafter, filed a written statement denying the allegations and raised question of jurisdiction of the Commission on the matter. Despite the objection, the Commission/respondent No. 2 continued with the proceeding and on 29.04.2013 issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners on the ground that they did not appear before it. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Manipur State Commission for Women (respondent No. 2) on the ground as follows :
“(i) Because the action of the respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
(ii) Because the Commission is neither a Court nor a Tribunal, it is a State Authority, a body to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006.
(iii) Because the functions of the Commission are provided and enumerated under S. 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 which do not cover matters to deal with individual domestic disputes, like the instant Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Commission.
(iv) Because respondent No. 2 has acted illegally and arbitrarily by assuming a jurisdiction not vested to it under the provisions of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006.
(v) Because right to personal liberty of the petitioners are being threatened by the impugned Commission Order dated 29.04.2013 passed in the said complaint case of the respondent No. 3.
(vi) Because warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners are not sanctioned/permissible under the provisions of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 in the facts and circumstanc
