Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Dattatray Bapat vs Nagar Palik Nigam And Anr. on 2 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)MPHT358
ORDER S.C. Vyas, J.
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.
4. As no specific procedure has been provided in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, therefore, the general provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding procedure of trial of case will be applicable. Court of Sessions though, it is required to work as a Special Court under the provisions of this Act remains Court of Sessions and that Court cannot take direct cognizance of any offence, unless the case is committed to that Court for trial by any Competent Magistrate. Therefore, the opinion expressed by learned Sessions Judge appears perfectly according to law. It does not appear that learned Sessions Judge Dewas has committed any irregularity, illegality and impropriety in passing the impugned order of returning the complaint to the complainant for presenting the same before a Competent Court.
5. Therefore, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference and this petition is devoid of any merits is liable to be dismissed.
6. Hence dismissed in limine.