AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 28, 2011 is questioning a decision dated March 29, 2011 (at p.66) given by a member of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission. The impugned decision dated March 29, 2011 is quoted below:
From S.P.''s report it appears that charge sheet in the case has already been submitted under relevant sections of the law. However, the order of the Commission was called for a report from the S.P., Howrah. Ultimately, S.P. had merely forwarded the report of the I.O. Bantra P.S. against whom the allegations were made in the petition. This is not proper, S.P. should henceforth ensure that this kind of mistakes does not recur. Inform the S.P. accordingly.
A copy of a representation dated June 7, 2010 (at p.56) made by the petitioner to the officer in charge of Bantra police station in Howrah was sent to the West Bengal Human Rights Commission. The representation was regarding the following:
Willfully negligent action and/or inaction on the part of Mr. Sovan Ghosh, S.I. in connection with Bantra P.S. Case No. 21 of 2010 Dt. 06.03.2010 u/s 279/338 of Indian Penal Code arising out of G.D. Entry no. 321 of 06.03.2010.
It was alleged in the representation that the officer investigating the case started on the basis of an FIR No. 21 of 2010 dated March 6, 2010 under sections 279/ 338 IPC miserably failed and neglected "to book the case under appropriate sections i.e. 304A of IPC (causing death by a rash or negligent Act), section 337 of IPC (causing hurt by an act that endangers human life), section 184 (Driving Dangerously) and section 196 (Driving uninsured vehicle) of Motor vehicle Act."
The persons and authorities to whom the representation was sent were requested "to intervene into the Investigation and to see that all the loopholes and lacunae of the investigation" were sealed properly, and that the miscreants did not go unpunished for lack of evidence. It is to be noted that the person whose death led to registration of the FIR was the petitioner''s husband, and that an accident the motorcycle he was riding pillion met with took his life.
Treating the copy of the representation as a complaint under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 the West Bengal Human Rights Commission issued a notice (at p.62) asking the Superintendent of Police. Howrah to submit a report before the Commission. A copy of the notice was forwarded to the petitioner by a memo dated October 8, 2010.
It is evident from the impugned decision that the Superintendent of Police submitted a report that after completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted before the Criminal Court. A copy of the chargesheet referred to in the impugned decision is at p.48 and it is dated June 30, 2010. The chargesheet was submitted under ss. 279/304A/338/427 IPC and 184/146/96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the accused named therein.
The question is whether seeking judicial review of the decision of the member of the Commission the petitioner is entitled to approach the High Court under art. 226.
It is not disputed that subsequently the Commission communicated another decision that in view of the pendency of a duly instituted case before the Criminal Court and submission of charge-sheet after completion of investigation, the Commission was not in a position to do anything in the matter. However, counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner is questioning the decision dated March 29, 2011.
Relying on the provisions of section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act. 1993 and the provisions following which the Commission is to make necessary investigation, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Commission having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and giving the cryptic decision without making inquiry, has failed in the discharge of its statutory obligation to deal with the complaint properly and give a reasoned decision.
Counsel for the Commission has submitted that the Commission initially issuing a notice asking the Superintendent of Police concerned to submit a report, ultimately held that it had no jurisdiction to do anything in the matter pertaining which a duly instituted a criminal case was pending before the Criminal Court.
Counsel for the State has submitted that, on the facts, the allegation of making an improper investigation by the investigating officer cannot be accepted. He has said that after investigating the case a proper charge-sheet has been filed u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 before the Court competent to take cognizance of the offences.
The provisions of section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empower a Commission to perform all or any of the functions specifically mentioned therein. It is evident that every function a Commission is authorized to perform must be related to violation of human rights. In view of the provisions there can be no doubt that if an allegation of violation of human rights is made, a Commission will have jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under provisions of the Act and pass appropriate order.
Nothing in any provisions of the Act, or for that matter in section 12 thereof, empowers the Commission to examine an allegation that an officer investigating a case on the basis of a duly registered FIR u/s 154 Cr.PC is not investigating or has not investigated the case properly. The expression "human rights" has been defined in cl.(d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, and it means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.
Nothing in the definition of the expression "human rights" given in section 2(1)(d) of the Act, or in any other law entitled the petitioner to claim that the alleged improper investigation of the case by the investigating officer concerned amounted to violation of anyone''s human rights. It is not the case that over the course of investigation the investigating officer violated human rights of anyone. The allegation rather was that the investigating officer did not make a proper investigation of the case.
In my opinion, on the basis of the allegation the Commission could not assume jurisdiction to inquire whether the investigating officer investigated the case properly. This could be done, only by the Court. The petitioner, if she wanted further investigation, could approach the Court, in which the charge-sheet was filed, seeking an order u/s 173(8) Cr.PC. If she wanted reinvestigation, then she ought to have approached the High Court u/s 482 Cr.PC. The Commission possessed no power to order further investigation or reinvestigation of the case. I am, therefore, of the view that the Commission initially committing a jurisdictional error by treating the copy of the representation as a complaint under the Act and issuing notice asking the Superintendent of Police to submit report, finally gave the correct decision declining to interfere in the matter citing pendency of the case before the appropriate Criminal Court in which the charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation of the case by the competent police officer.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.