Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Lalmunlen Serto & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 661 of 2019
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Jurisdiction - Manipur State Commission for Women - Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006, Section 10 - The court held that the Commission has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal. The proceedings were not beyond the scope of the Act and the petitioners' allegations were baseless.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash proceedings of a complaint case initiated by the Manipur State Commission for Women, alleging false and fabricated complaints by the third respondent and transgression of authority by the Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal. The proceedings were not beyond the scope of the Act and the petitioners' allegations were baseless.
Issues: The issues involved false and fabricated complaints, transgression of authority by the Commission, and the scope of the Commission's powers under the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal. The proceedings were not beyond the scope of the Act and the petitioners' allegations were baseless.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 initiated by the Manipur State Commission for Women.
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
On 25.3.2019, the third respondent has filed a complaint before the Manipur State Commission for Women alleging, inter alia, that in the month of April, 2018, while she was staying in Bangalore and working, she came to know the first petitioner. Thereafter, they fell in love and had physical relationship. After he left Bangalore in the last week of January, 2019, the first petitioner informed her over telephone that his family members did not accept their relationship and thereafter, he stopped calling her over phone. Since the attempt made by the third respondent to reconcile the relationship with the help of her relatives failed, she had lodged a complaint with the second respondent Commission. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the first petitioner.
2.1. Upon receipt of the complaint, the second respondent registered a case in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 against the petitioners and issued summons for appearance on 9.5.2019. Though summons were delivered on 29.5.2019, the petitioners could not appear before the Commission. On 30.5.2019, when the petitioners visited the office of the second respondent, they came to know that the second respondent has already issued Warrant of Arrest against them. On 3.6.2019, the Commission recalled the Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioners.
2.2. On 12.6.2019, the petitioners have filed an application questioning the authority of the Commission to adjudicate and determine the rights of the parties and the said application has been rejected by the Commission. On that day, the second respondent examined and recorded the statement of the first petitioner. Similarly, the second respondent also recorded the statement of the third respondent.
2.3. On 7.8.2019 when the petitioners along with their counsel appeared before the second respondent, the second respondent forced the petitioners to admit the allegation leveled by the third respondent against the first petitioner and the second respondent used different words systematically for causing threat and intimidation to the petitioners when they denied the allegation. The second respondent also insisted for paying certain amount of money as compensation to the third respondent. Since the petitioners have not committed any wrong, they are not ready to pay any compensation to the third respondent. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 pending on the file of the second respondent.
3. The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 28.3.2019, the third respondent lodged a complaint to the Chairperson of the second respondent for taking necessary legal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with a great loss of her modesty and reputation before the society as she is living in a miserable life. It is stated that in the complaint the third respondent further stated that the first petitioner ruined her life and her future carrier. Upon receipt of the complaint, the second respondent along with her members took a statement of the complainant on 4.4.2019 and had issued summons to the petitioners on different dates for personal appearance on 9.5.2019. But due to non-appearance of the petitioners, the case was adjourned and fixed on 21.5.2019 for appearance of the petitioners. Again the petitioners failed to appear before the Commission and, as such, the Commission again issued summons to the petitioners for appearance on 12.6.2019.
3.1. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the second respondent denied the allegation that the second respondent started giving pressure to the petitioners to admit the allegation made by the third respondent against the first petitioner; used different words s
The Manipur State Commission for Women has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal.
The Telangana State Women's Commission has the authority to issue summons based on information received without requiring a preliminary investigation, as per Sections 16(1)(b) and 16(3) of the Act.
Failure to follow procedural requirements by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women invalidated their actions and recommendations, allowing the writ petition.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lacks jurisdiction to investigate individual caste status claims, which violates natural justice principles.
The Minorities Commission cannot adjudicate individual financial disputes; its role is to protect minority rights, not to resolve personal grievances.
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
