(This Crl. Petition is filed U/S.482 of CR.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Prl. S.J., Tumkur in P.H.R. No…/07, as being illegal, arbitrary and to direct the Prl. S.J., Tumkur to reinstate the complaint filed before and to prosecute the same in Accordance with law.)
Heard both the parties.
2. The petitioner herein as a public spirited person filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short the ‘Act’) before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, alleging certain human rights violated by the persons named as accused herein. The learned Sessions Judge on presentation of the complaint, developed a doubt with regard to maintainability of the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the complainant regarding the maintainability of the complaint, by the order impugned in this petition dated 23.12.2010, dismissed the complaint as not maintainable by observing as under:
“para 6: Further on perusal of the entire provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, it does not contain the Chapter relating to offences and punishment, so as to try any person alleged of violation of human rights, which interse indicate that the person against whom such an allegation is made, cannot be summoned before this Court to reply the abesenta-charge before inquiry. The powers of this Court is restricted for conducting the trial in pursuant to such an inquiry if sought by the competent agency or the Government. So, this Court has no power under the Human Rights Act to conduct inquiry or the investigation into the matters relating to violation of human rights.
para7: Under Section 21 of the Act, in this State, the Government of Karnataka has constituted a State Human Rights Commission where the person may have some forum where they can go with their reports and grievances of violation of Human Rights as defined under the Act. There is some mechanism of redressal, which is independent and fair operating the State. Before, however Sessions Judge are empowered to act as Human Rights Courts and before, other steps are taken to introduce in the State an independent system for the protection of human rights, the normal law must take its course and if nothing else is possible to do, a case is registered and is investigated by an independent and impartial agency. The powers of this Court are restricted for conducting the speedy trial in pursuant to such an enquiry if sought by the competent agency i.e., State Human Rights Commission.
Para8: Looking to the averments in the petition there is no prima facie material placed by the petitioner to proceed against the respondents. Firstly, this Court has no power under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to conduct inquiry or the investigation into the matters relating to violation of human rights, in view of the establishment of State Human Rights Commission by the Government of Karnataka under Section 21 of the said Act. The powers of this Court is only restricted for conducting the speedy trial in pursuant to such an enquiry if sought by the competent agency i.e., State Human Rights Commission. Hence this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(underline supplied)
Thus, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that he has no power to conduct inquiry or investigation into the matters relating to violation of human rights in view of establishment of Human Rights Commission in the State and that his powers are restricted to conduct of speedy trial pursuant to enquiry by State Human Rights Commission, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by producing a copy of Gazette notification dated 25.1.2006, whereunder, the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 framed by the State of Karnataka, has been published contended that the order dismissing the complaint as not maintainable is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 of the said Rules, therefore, the order suffers from illegality and irregularity as such it is liable to be quashed and the learned Sessions Judge is required to be directed to consider the complaint on merits. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge appears to be not aware of the Rules framed by the Karnataka State and this has resulted in the order impugned in this petition.
4. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which is extracted above, the complaint came to be dismissed on the ground that the Court has no power under the Act to conduct inquiry or investigation into the matters relating to violation of human rights. Copy of the official Gazette, which is produced now before this Court dated 25.01.2006 clearly indicates that the State of Karnataka has framed Rules called as the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act.
Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under:
Rules 6. Procedure and powers of Court: (1) A victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered Non-Governmental Organisation or an public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of an offence of violation of human rights, while acting under the colour of his office as a public servant.
Provided a complaint on behalf of the victim may be filed by a Non-Governmental Organisation or a public person only with prior authorisation on affidavit by the victim.
(2) The Court on receipt of such complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in the Code.
Provided that the Superintendent of Police shall complete such investigation as far as possible within fifteen days, failing which he shall report the progress of the investigation to the Court concerned with the case diaries and seek extension of time for further investigation and complete the investigation within the stipulated time.
(3) If after the investigation, the investigating officer reports to the court that no offence is made out, the court shall serve the complainant with a notice for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground of proceeding.
(4) If on the basis of police report or the evidence collected during preliminary inquiry, the court is of the view that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused in appropriate cases, the court shall forward a copy of the complaint along with the material evidence collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, to the competent authority for its perusal for the purpose of grant of sanction for the prosecution of the accused.
(5) The competent authority shall dispose of the request for sanction within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of communication from the court.
(6) The trial before the court shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions regarding sessions trial prescribed under the code.
(7) The court shall try the offence on day to day basis.
The term ‘Court’ is defined under Rule 2(1) as under:
“Court” means a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.
5. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights or his legal representatives or a registered Non-Governmental Organisation or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of an offence of violation of human rights, before the Sessions Court, which is designated as Human Rights Court by the State and on receipt of such complaint, the designated Court is empowered to either order an investigation by the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per Rule 6(2), if police is directed to hold investigation, the Superintendent of Police should complete such investigation within a stipulated period. Rules also requires the Special Court to hold trial upon filing of the report by the Superintendent of Police and to hold such trial on day to day basis. Thus, rules extracted above has empowered the Special Court namely the Sessions Judge to entertain the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging offence relating to violation of human rights.
6. Perusal of the order impugned in this petition indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has not referred to the rules framed by the State. It appears that framing of such Rules has not been brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge and this has resulted in dismissal of the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable before the Court. In the light of the provisions of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules, the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Sessions Judge, who is admittedly constituted as Human Rights Court by the State Government under notification dated 16.4.2005, was maintainable and the learned Sessions Judge was required to consider the complaint on merits and ought to have passed appropriate orders thereon. As, the order dismissing the complaint as not maintainable has been passed without referring to the Rules framed by the State, the said order is illegal and contrary to the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the learned Sessions Judge has to be directed to dispose of the complaint on merits.
7. Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to note that the Sessions Courts, which are designated as Human Rights Courts by notification No. LAW 20 LAG 2005 dated 16.4.2005 under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, appears to have not been apprised about the promulgation of the rules framed by the State. Therefore, Registry is directed to circulate the copies of the Rules framed by the State to all the Human Rights Courts constituted in the State so that the Sessions Courts could take appropriate steps in accordance with said rules, whenever complaints are field alleging offences on account of violation of human rights.
8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in P.H.R. No. ………/2006 (unnumbered) complaint filed by the petitioner herein dismissing the said complaint is hereby quashed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to restore the said complaint on to the file and consider the same on merits in accordance with Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006.