Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 81488
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
S. Guruchandra Vadivel – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to The Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.13801 of 2021 | WMP (MD) No.10769 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Thalaimuthurasu
For the Respondents: M. Mahaboob Athiff, V. Muthuvelan
The State Human Rights Commission cannot entertain a complaint if the matter is already sub judice before a criminal court, as prohibited by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction of Human Rights Commission - Sub judice matter - Entertainment of a complaint by the State Human Rights Commission is impermissible when the matter regarding the same occurrence is pending before a criminal court, as per Regulation 9(g) and 9(h) of the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997. (Para 5)
(B) Writ of Certiorari - Quashing of Order - An order passed by a commission without jurisdiction is illegal and liable to be set aside. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the State Human Rights Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint while the matter was sub judice before a Judicial Magistrate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the shrc order and the complainant's allegations of police assault. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. shrc lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints that are sub judice before a criminal court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. quashing of the impugned order due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 6) |
PRAYER :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in SHRC case No.3356 of 2019 dated 20.04.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by N.DILIP KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition is filed by the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Puliangudi Police Station, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District, against the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No. 3356 of 2019 dated 20th April, 2021, holding the petitioner guilty of violation of human rights and directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with a further direction to the Government to recover the same from the writ petitioner and as well a direction recommending to initiate disciplinary action against the writ petitioner.
2. The grievance of the complainant before the State Human Rights Commission is that, on 14th March 2019, when he went to the Government Hospital, Puliyangudi, to see his injured elder brother, who had allegedly been assaulted by neighbouring landowners, certain police personnel in plain clothes took him to the police station, where he was allegedly assaulted, including by the writ petitioner, who also threatened and compelled him to admit an offence and not to disclose the assault before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. The complainant further alleges that, even after being remanded to judicial custody, he was taken back towards Puliyangudi and assaulted in an auto by the writ petitioner, resulting in injuries, which he subsequently reported to the jail authorities and for which he received treatment.
3. A perusal of the records indicate that, with regard to the very same occurrence alleging criminal offence against the writ petitioner, the complainant has also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the Court of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2019 and the same is pending consideration.
4. Thus, it is evident from the records that the matter was sub judice before the Court of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, with respect to the same occurrence in in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2019.
5. When the matter was sub judice before the Court of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, the State Human Rights Commission could not have entertained the complaint in the light of Regulation 9(g) and also Regulation 9(h) of the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997.
6. Therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is accordingly set aside as lacking in jurisdiction. The writ petition stands allowed. The complainant/fourth respondent is at liberty to pursue his further remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
