Elipe Dharma Rao, J.:-The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner, State Human Rights Commission, closing the complaint given by her in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated against the second respondent. 2. The petitioner gave a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission complaining that her son, who was studying in VII-C at Kesari Higher Secondary School, Mylapore, Chennai, was beaten up on 02.03.2007 by the second respondent and caused him bleeding injuries. The Commission, after taking the said complaint on file, issued summons to the parties. Subsequently, the complaint was closed on the ground that criminal proceedings were already initiated against the second respondent and also on the ground that the first respondent school is a private aided school and not a Government Educational Institution. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. 4. The complaint made by the petitioner before the first respondent was rejected only on the ground that with respect to the very same cause of action, criminal case was pending before the criminal Court. As per Rule-9 of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) and Regulations, 1997, it is open to the Commission to reject the complaint, in case, the matter is sub judice before a Court or Tribunal. This provision is an enabling provision and is in the nature of a discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, merely because the complaint is pending before a Court or Tribunal, it would not divest the Tribunal of its powers to take the complaint on file. Moreover, the provision does not bar the jurisdiction of the Commission altogether to entertain the complaint. Therefore, each case has to be decided on a casewise basis. The other reason which weighed with the Commission to reject the complaint was on account of the nature of management of the school. According to the Commission, the institution was a private institution. The institution is said to be a private aided institution and as such, it cannot be said that such an institution will not come within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Therefore we are of the view that the complaint was rejected more on technicalities. While rejecting the complaint, the Commission failed to take note of the laudable purpose behind the enactment of the very Human Rights Act. Therefore we are of the view that the complaint was rejected more on technicalities. While rejecting the complaint, the Commission failed to take note of the laudable purpose behind the enactment of the very Human Rights Act. In such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the first respondent. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.02.2009 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The State Human Rights Commission is requested to take the complaint on file and decide the issue on merits and as per law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.