ORDER 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 30.5.2006 made in S.H.R.C. No. 5610 of 2005 and quash the same and for other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to one Kandasamy, Proprietor of Okey Textiles, Tiruppur and towards the discharge of the said loan, the said Kandasamy issued two cheques bearing Nos. 333579 and 333560 dated 25.1.2004 dated 25.4.2004 respecitvely, each for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-; that pursuant to the dishonour of the above said cheques, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C. No. 90 of 2004 and C.C. No. 271 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore; that thereafter the said Kandasamy instigated one Velusamy to lodge a private complaint on the file of the very same Judicial Magistrate alleging borrowal of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the said Kandasamy from Velusamy and that the petitioner, who mediated the dispute between Kandasamy and Velusamy, had received the cheques concerned in C.C. No. 90 of 2004 and C.C. No. 271 of 2004 and thereby committed breach of trust; that on the said private complaint, based on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate VI, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 30 of 2005 on the file of the second respondent for an offence under Section 406 IPC; that the second respondent in the guise of investigating the said matter, entered the pooja room of the petitioner on 20.7.2005 at 9.00 a.m and took the petitioner away forcibly to the office of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore without even allowing the petitioner to consume his regular medicine, besides using filthy language against the family members of the petitioner; that the second respondent also tried to assault the petitioner; that by misusing the official power and threatening the relatives of the petitioner, the second respondent compelled the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4.65 lakhs to the said Velusamy; that such a misuse of power and highhanded act on the part of the second respondent was reported to the first respondent (State Human Rights Commission) for initiating action against the acts on the part of the second respondent, since according to the petitioner, they amounted to violation of human rights and that the first respondent, namely the State Human Rights Commission, without properly considering the complaint of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, simply passed an order on 30.5.2006 closing the complaint on the basis that in the criminal case registered on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, as Crime No. 30 of 2005 for an offence under Section 406 IPC, investigation resulted in the submission of a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – VI, Coimbatore on 21.9.2005. According to the petitioner, the closure of the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission on the premise that a final report had been submitted by the Investigating Agency in the complaint against him was not proper and the State Human Rights Commission ought to have conducted an independent enquiry and decided the measures to be taken on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint made to the State Human Rights Commission. 3. 3. On the other hand, the second respondent has come forward with a counter affidavit contending that based on the very same allegations on which the complaint was made to the State Human Rights Commission, a private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the second respondent on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 1714 of 2005 and later on transferred to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and re-numbered as C.C. No. 61 of 2007; that the said case, after full trial, ended in acquittal; that in view of the said judgment of acquittal pronounced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on the allegations the complaint made before the State Human Rights Commission became infructuous and nothing was left for the State Human Rights Commission to probe further and that in view of the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against that judgment instead of filing this writ petition seeking for quashing the order of the State Human Rights Commission. In view of the said judgment, the writ petition has become infructuous and the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in the above said C.C. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 4. The arguments advanced by Mr. J. Pothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, by Mr. S.T.S. Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent by Mr. Raja Senthoorpandian, learned counsel for the second respondent are heard. The materials available in the form of typed-set are also perused. 5. The fact that the petitioner filed a private complaint and initiated criminal proceedings against one Kandasamy in C.C. Nos. 90 of 2004 and 271 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – VI, Coimbatore for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not a disputed one. A counter case seems to have been initiated by one Velusamy on the premise that those cheques had been obtained by the petitioner herein while mediating the money transaction between Velusamy and Kandasamy and thereafter the petitioner had committed breach of trust, which was the basis for registration of a case in Crime No. 30 of 2005 on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. It is also not in dispute that the investigation in the said case was conducted on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate concerned and the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report in the said case. If at all the investigation in the said case was biased and was done misusing the official capacity and the investigating officer caused violation of human rights, on the complaint made by the petitioner to the State Human Rights Commission, it would have conducted an enquiry and recommended measures including lodging of a complaint in the Human Rights Court for prosecution of the offender of human rights violation. For the very same acts, besides making a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, the petitioner seems to have initiated parallel proceedings on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, which was later on transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and the same ultimately resulted in acquittal by judgment in C.C. No. 61 of 2007. 6. As the criminal case instituted on the complaint of the petitioner regarding the very same acts, which are alleged to be the acts in violation of the human rights, has ended in acquittal of the second respondent, there cannot by any second prosecution even at the instance of the State Human Rights Commission. Otherwise the same will be violative of the protection against double jeopardy. In view of the fact that the criminal case instituted based on the complaint of the petitioner against the second respondent for the alleged acts has ended in acquittal, nothing remains to be probed on the part of the first respondent herein. Even if the order closing the complaint of the petitioner lodged with the State Human Rights Commission could be viewed as one passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and on a misconception that the submission of a final report by the second respondent in the case filed against the petitioner will put an end to the probe by the State Human Rights Commission, no purpose will be served by setting aside the said order of the State Human Rights Commission and directing the State Human Rights Commission to conduct enquiry on the basis of the said complaint, because the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate will provide a bar for the same on the principle of protection against double jeopardy. The remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 61/2007 on the file of the said Court. 7. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed holding that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the pronouncement of judgment in C.C. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. No costs. Petition dismissed.