Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from in any way proceeding further pursuant to the summons issued in Case No.4842/2000/KSJ initiated by the second respondent before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. 2. The second respondent herein married to one Capital K.J. Ebenezer, who is the petitioners wifes sisters son. The second respondent had given a complaint against her husband, her in-laws and also against the petitioner herein before the State Human Rights Commission. In order to make an enquiry as contemplated under the Human Rights Act, the first respondent had issued the summons, calling upon the petitioner to appear for the enquiry. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further with the show-cause notice. 3. The only contention urged by Mr.K.Subramanian, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the State Human Rights Commission is not empowered to receive any complaint against any individual and make an enquiry; that too especially with regard to the matrimonial matters. 4. Hence, the question for consideration is whether the State Human Rights Commission is empowered to enquire into the complaint made by the second respondent or not. 5. The learned senior counsel referred to Sec.12(a)(ii) of the said Act and contended that the State Commission or the National Commission will have jurisdiction to enquire into any complaint in respect of any violations of the human rights by a public servant. Moreover, he also referred to Sec.30 of the said Act and contended that in Tamil Nadu, the District Court of Session had been vested with the power to try the complaint in respect of violation of human rights and as such the first respondent cannot proceed with the enquiry. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is worthwhile to have a look at Sec.12 and Sec.30 of the said Act. It is unnecessary to extract the entire section. The necessary portion will be sufficient for the purpose of discussion, which are as follows: “12. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is worthwhile to have a look at Sec.12 and Sec.30 of the said Act. It is unnecessary to extract the entire section. The necessary portion will be sufficient for the purpose of discussion, which are as follows: “12. Functions of the Commission: The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely: (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of-- (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violations, by a public servant…..” “30. Human Rights Courts: For the purpose of providing for speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each District Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences; Provided that nothing in this section shall apply, if (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a Special Court; or (b) a Special Court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force.” 7. The first contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is based on Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(a) of Sec.12. A reading of Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) will make it clear that each is a distinct and separate matters over which the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, got jurisdiction to enquire into. Sec.12 deals with the functions of the Commission, Sub-sec. (a) empowers the Commission to enquire suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf. Sub-clause (i) of Sub-sec.(a) deals with the complaint relating to the violation of human rights or abetment thereof. Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(a) deals with the negligence in the prevention of such violations by a public servant. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.2 defines ‘Human Rights’ as follows: “Human Rights “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.” 8. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.2 defines ‘Human Rights’ as follows: “Human Rights “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.” 8. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the second respondent had made the complaint against her husband, in-laws and the petitioner herein regarding the harassment both physical and mental caused to her. Definitely the overt acts alleged by the second respondent in the complaint would attract the violations of human rights, since the complaint is with regard to the ill-treatment meeted out by her from others as well as the danger to her life. This would definitely fall under Sub-clause (i) of Sub-sec.(a) of Sec.12 of the said Act, i.e., violation of human rights or abetment thereof. Subclause (ii) of Sub-sec.(a) of Sec.12 is contemplating totally a different situation, i.e., against the public servant who has committed the negligence in prevention of such violation. Hence, Sub-clause (i) of Sub-sec.(a) of Sec.12 deals with the violation meeted out to the victim by others. Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(a) of Sec.12 deals with the negligence on the part of the public servant in not preventing such violation. 9. Hence, it cannot be said that the State Commission has got the jurisdiction only to try the complaint against the violations committed by the public authority or the statutory authority alone. Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner so far as the first question is concerned, cannot be countenanced. 10. So far as the second contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sec.30 of the Act empowers the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court to specify each District Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court, to try the said offences, by notification. As the State of Tamil Nadu has already notified all the District and Sessions Judges to be the Courts of Human Rights, it is contended not only the District Courts will have the jurisdiction. 11. Here again, this Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. If all the District Courts of the State had been conferred with such jurisdiction then there is no need for the existence of the State Human Rights Commission. 11. Here again, this Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. If all the District Courts of the State had been conferred with such jurisdiction then there is no need for the existence of the State Human Rights Commission. When the Commission is in existence and functions that itself is a clear indication that the District and Sessions Judges who are notified as the Human Rights Court, will also have the jurisdiction to try the excess specified under the Protection of Human Rights Act apart from the State Commission. The parties will have the discretion to choose any one of the forum. In the Act also there is no specific bar for the State Commission to entertain the complaint from any one who is residing within the jurisdiction of the District Judge who had been notified as the human rights court under Sec.30 of the said Act. Hence, this contention is also without any merits. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.30547 of 2000 is closed.