The State Human Rights Commission is barred from entertaining complaints under Regulation 9(g) of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Regulations if the same allegations are already pending adjudication before a competent Criminal Court.

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 No.259/2018 dated 23.03.2021 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner : Mr.G. Thalaimutharasu

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff (R1 & R2)

Special Government Pleader : Mr.V.Muthuvelan (R3)

: Ms.C.Ishwarya Devi (R4)

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent/State Human Rights Commission in SHRC No. 259 of 2018 dated 23.03.2021.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, while he was working at Kovilpatti East Police Station, registered a criminal case against the fourth respondent in Crime No.582 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 387, 506(ii), 448 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth respondent was arrested on 09.11.2017 at about 6.30 a.m. Thereafter, the fourth respondent made a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission. The State Human Rights Commission passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, admittedly, the petitioner registered a case in Crime No.582 of 2017 against the fourth respondent on the basis of the complaint given by one Shenbagamoorthy. Thereafter, the fourth respondent was arrested on 09.11.2017 in front of Sheik Tea Stall, Puthukiramam, Kovilpatti. At the time of arrest, he attempted to run away from the tea shop, fell down and sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody and made a complaint before the third respondent Commission. In order to prove his case, the fourth respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked. After adjudication, the impugned order came to be passed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, in respect of the very same occurrence, the petitioner conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet in C.C.No.29 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti. The fourth respondent, apart from the complaint before the Human Rights Commission, had also filed a private complaint alleging police excess under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, and the same is pending in Crl.M.P.No.1341 of 2018. Therefore, the very same issue which was alleged before the third respondent is pending consideration before the competent Criminal Court and the same ought not to have been entertained or adjudicated upon by the Human Rights Commission.

The learned counsel would further submit that such proceedings are barred under Regulation 9(g) of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Regulations and in support of his contention, he would rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in M.Chelladurai and another v. The Registrar, SHRC , reported in 2023 (1) Writ L.R.76. Accordingly, he would pray for appropriate orders.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State Human Rights Commission would submit that the complaint was duly considered by the Commission after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties and upon appreciation of the materials placed on record. Upon such consideration, the Commission arrived at a finding that there was a violation of the human rights of the complainant and accordingly, passed the impugned order directing payment of compensation and recommending appropriate departmental action. The learned cou