T VENKATESWARAN Vs. MUTHURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows: -The appellant, who was the second respondent in the writ petition, filed on 01. 07. 2002 a complaint before the Tamil nadu State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission)alleging that the first respondent herein acted in violation of the human rights of the appellant by physically assaulting him and using filthy language against him without any reason and thus preventing the appellant from recovering his gold ornaments from one M. M. Rangaswamy of Lakshmi Gold bankers and his agents. We are not going into the merits of those allegations. When such a complaint was filed on 01. 07. 2002 before the Commission in respect of an incident which took place on 28. 02. 2002, it was filed very much within one year. On the said complaint being filed, the Commission issued summons on 16. 4. 2003 and hearing took place before the Commission on 13. 05. 2003. On 13. 05. 2003, hearing was adjourned and before further hearing could took place on the adjourned date, a writ petition was filed by the first respondent and a stay was granted by this Hon'ble Court on 16th July, 2003. Thereafter, the writ petition was heard by the learned Judge and by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to quash the complaint and allowed the writ petition. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN the judgment of the writ court, the learned Judge construed the provisions of section 36 (2) of The Protection of Human rights Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ). The said provision of Section 36 (2)of the said Act is set out below.