RAJENDRA DATTATRAY BAPAT Vs. NAGAR PALIK NIGAM DEWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) HIS grievance is that a private complaint which was filed by him before human Rights Court, Dewas was ultimately returned to him by that Court with a direction to present the same before Competent Judicial magistrate and that court being a Court of Sessions can only take cognizance of the offence after committal of the case by Judicial Magistrate. He submitted that no specific procedure has been prescribed in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" for short) for filing of a private complaint before Human Right Court. He has drawn attention of this Court towards section 30 of the Act and submitted that for establishment of human rights for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, Court of Sessions has been designated as Special Court and that is why he filed the complaint before that Court regarding violation of his human rights. He submitted that as no procedure has been prescribed in the Act itself therefore, learned Sessions Judge was wrong in returning the complaint to the petitioner for presenting the same before Competent Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) I have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is clear that Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 does not provide any specific procedure for trial of the offences regarding violation of human rights by someone. Only Specific Court being Court of Sessions has been designated as human Rights Court under Section 30 of the Act. A provision for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor has also been incorporated in the Act under section 31 of the Act.