K RANGASAMY Vs. REGISTRAR STATE HUMAN RIGHTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 30.05.2006 made in S.H.R.C.No.5610 of 2005 and quash the same and for other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, he had advanced a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to one Kandasamy, Proprietor of M/s.Okey Textiles, Tiruppur and towards the discharge of the said loan, the said Kandasamy issued two cheques bearing Nos.333579 and 333560 dated 25.01.2004 dated 25.04.2004 respecitvely, each for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-; that pursuant to the dishonour of the above said cheques, the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.90/2004 and C.C.No.271/2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore; that thereafter the said Kandasamy instigated one Velusamy to lodge a private complaint on the file of the very same Judicial Magistrate alleging borrowal of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by the said Kandasamy from Velusamy and that the petitioner, who mediated the dispute between Kandasamy and Velusamy, had received the cheques concerned in C.C.No.90/2004 and C.C.No.271/2004 and thereby committed breach of trust; that on the said private complaint, based on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate VI, a case came to be registered in Crime No.30/2005 on the file of the second respondent for an offence under section 406 IPC; that the second respondent in the guise of investigating the said matter, entered the pooja room of the petitioner on 20.07.2005 at 9.00 a.m and took the petitioner away forcibly to the office of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore without even allowing the petitioner to consume his regular medicine, besides using filthy language against the family members of the petitioner; that the second respondent also tried to assault the petitioner; that by misusing the official power and threatening the relatives of the petitioner, the second respondent compelled the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4.65 lakhs to the said Velusamy; that such a misuse of power and highhanded act on the part of the second respondent was reported to the first respondent (State Human Rights Commission) for initiating action against the acts on the part of the second respondent, since according to the petitioner, they amounted to violation of human rights and that the first respondent, namely the State Human Rights Commission, without properly considering the complaint of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, simply passed an order on 30.05.2006 closing the complaint on the basis that in the criminal case registered on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, as Crime No.30/2005 for an offence under section 406 IPC, investigation resulted in the submission of a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore on 21.09.2005. According to the petitioner, the closure of the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission on the premise that a final report had been submitted by the Investigating Agency in the complaint against him was not proper and the State Human Rights Commission ought to have conducted an independent enquiry and decided the measures to be taken on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint made to the State Human Rights Commission.

(3.) On the other hand, the second respondent has come forward with a counter affidavit contending that based on the very same allegations on which the complaint was made to the State Human Rights Commission, a private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the second respondent on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1714/2005 and later on transferred to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and re-numbered as C.C.No.61/2007; that the said case, after full trial, ended in acquittal; that in view of the said judgment of acquittal pronounced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on the allegations the complaint made before the State Human Rights Commission became infructuous and nothing was left for the State Human Rights Commission to probe further and that in view of the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against that judgment instead of filing this writ petition seeking for quashing the order of the State Human Rights Commission. In view of the said judgment, the writ petition has become infructuous and the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in the above said C.C.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.