JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kh. Shanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India was registered on the application filed by the petitioners who are members of the same family, praying for quashing the complaint case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Manipur State Commission for Women at Lamphelpat which was instituted on a petition submitted by respondent No. 3 in this case, on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition as submitted by the petitioners: 3. The respondent No. 3 claiming to have been married to the petitioner No. 3 on 11.01.2013 following their elopement on 10.01.2013 filed a complaint petition on 06.03.2013 before the Chairperson, Manipur State Commission for Women, Lamphelpat, Imphal alleging that from the very night of their marriage itself she was harshly ill-treated by the 2 (two) aunts of the petitioner No. 3, and on the following day also, the petitioner No. 1 i.e. father of the petitioner No. 3 kicked her and the two aunts of the petitioner No. 3 attempted to physically assault her. That, the ill treatment did not end there, but continued with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 using words against her which are insulting and hurting and when she was pregnant in course of time and her mother-in-law (i.e. petitioner No. 2) came to know the same, her pregnancy was aborted by force without her consent. Unable to bear such constant torture and harassment, she left for the parental home of her mother in the morning of 02.03.2013 and from there, her father brought her to her parents home in the evening of the same day. The State Women Commission (which shall, thereafter, be referred to respondent No. 2) after admitting the complaint issued summons to the petitioners asking them to appear before it on 04.04.2013. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and the learned counsel representing them undertook to file power of Attorney on the next date fixed for hearing i.e. on 08.04.2013. Their learned counsel, thereafter, filed a written statement denying the allegations and raised question of jurisdiction of the Commission on the matter. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and the learned counsel representing them undertook to file power of Attorney on the next date fixed for hearing i.e. on 08.04.2013. Their learned counsel, thereafter, filed a written statement denying the allegations and raised question of jurisdiction of the Commission on the matter. Despite the objection, the Commission/respondent No. 2 continued with the proceeding and on 29.04.2013 issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners on the ground that they did not appear before it. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Manipur State Commission for Women (respondent No. 2) on the ground as follows : “(i) Because the action of the respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii) Because the Commission is neither a Court nor a Tribunal, it is a State Authority, a body to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006. (iii) Because the functions of the Commission are provided and enumerated under S. 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 which do not cover matters to deal with individual domestic disputes, like the instant Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Commission. (iv) Because respondent No. 2 has acted illegally and arbitrarily by assuming a jurisdiction not vested to it under the provisions of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006. (v) Because right to personal liberty of the petitioners are being threatened by the impugned Commission Order dated 29.04.2013 passed in the said complaint case of the respondent No. 3. (vi) Because warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners are not sanctioned/permissible under the provisions of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such an order dated 29.04.2013. (vii) Because the Commission cannot be permitted to function as a parallel Court.” 4. None of the respondents except respondent No. 1 filed counter affidavit. The Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such an order dated 29.04.2013. (vii) Because the Commission cannot be permitted to function as a parallel Court.” 4. None of the respondents except respondent No. 1 filed counter affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent No. 1 submitted that the Commission i.e. respondent No. 2 issued summons to the petitioners to afford them chance being heard and so as to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 3, but, since the petitioners did not appear, warrant of arrest was issued. The respondent No. 3 in doing so was merely exercising its power as provided under Section 10 (2) of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006, therefore there is no illegality in it which would necessitate interference of this High Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the function of the commission as provided under Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 is to find out shortcomings, deficiencies or problems in the existing system relating to protection of rights of women as provided under the Constitution or any other law and to recommend suggestions and remedies to the State Government. But the Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend to admitting of complaints and trying of such complaints as is done by Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, admitting the complaint of the respondent No. 3 and thereby directing the petitioners to appear before it, to submit their reply amounts to assuming the function of a Court or Tribunal, and as such, acting beyond its jurisdiction. As such, the proceeding pending before the Commission deserves to be quashed. In support of this submission, the learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women & Anr.” reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 2851 . In that, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the contents of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 which is more or less similar to the contents of Section 10 of Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 decided as follows : “Para No. 8. In that, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the contents of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 which is more or less similar to the contents of Section 10 of Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 decided as follows : “Para No. 8. -It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act that the State Commission has been authorized to take up studies in respect of economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State and also the working conditions of the women in the factories, establishments, construction sites and make its recommendations to the State Government. The State Commission is empowered to compile information in respect of the offences against women and to co-ordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women. Further, the State commission is competent to receive complaints in respect of the matters specified in Section 10(1) (d) and take up the grievances raised in the complaints with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures. The State Commission is also given role of assisting, training and orienting the non-Government organization in the State in legal counseling of poor women ad enabling such women to get legal aid. Under clause (f) of Section 10(1), the State Commission is authorized to inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women’s institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise take up with the concerned authorities these matters for remedial action. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and healthcare that may help in overall development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women, probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the concerned authorities for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. Mr. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the concerned authorities for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matter specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a Court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 then referred to Section 10(3) and submitted that the State Commission has been conferred with all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit. We are afraid, this is not at all proper reading of Section 19(3). The expression ‘have all the power of a Civil Court’ in Section 10(3) is qualified by the following words, ‘in respect of the following matters’. That is to say, the State Commission has powers of Civil Court trying a suit for the matters specified in clauses (a) to (f) thereof and not for other purposes. It is clear to us that the Legislature has not gone so far as to give jurisdiction to the State Commission to make an order such as the one that has been made. From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the State Commission in its order dated May, 11, 2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the State Commission in its order dated May, 11, 2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of correcting that order went a step further and directed that DNA of the child as well as the appellant shall be conducted.” 6. Both the learned counsels representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that the Commission was very much within its power and jurisdiction to admit such complaint and to investigate the same for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether such complaint has substance and prima-facie so as to decide whether it should be taken up with the appropriate authority for further action. It is also submitted that there is defect of parties in impleading Secretary (Law) as one of the parties instead of impleading Secretary/Commissioner, Social Welfare who is head of the Administrative Department for the Commission. They also submitted a copy of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Single Judge of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in W.P.(C) No. 619 of 2011 in which the High Court instead of interfering with the warrant of arrest issued by the Manipur State Commission for Women in a case No. 39 of 2011 directed that the order issuing warrant be kept in abeyance for 15 (fifteen) days and during that time, the petitioner shall appear before the Commission and file an application for recalling warrant of arrest issued against them and the Commission on receipt of application consider and dispose the same within a period of 5 (five) days in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 7. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the function of the Orissa State Commission for Women in reference to Section 10 of Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 was considered, I am of the view that the same interpretation applies in the case of Section 10 of Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 which is more or less similar to the contents of Section 10 of Orissa State Commission for Women Act. For better appreciation, the contents of the 2 (two) Sections are reproduced here below : “Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 - Functions - (1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely : (a) Make in-depth studies on - (i) The economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State, with particular emphasis on the tribal districts and areas which are under-developed with respect to women’s literacy, mortality and economic development. (ii) Condition in which women work in factories, establishments, construction sites and other similar situations, and recommend to the State Government on the basis of specific reports on improving the status of women in the said areas; (b) Compile information, from time to time, on instances of all offences against women in the State or in selected areas, including cases related to marriage and dowry, rape, kidnapping, criminal abduction, eve-teasing, immortal trafficking in women and cases of medical negligence in causing delivery or sterilization or medical intervention that relates to child bearing or child birth ; (c) Will co-ordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women, if any for mobilization of public opinion in the State as a whole or in specific areas which would help in speedy reporting and detection of offences of such atrocities and mobilization or public opinion against the offenders ; (d) Receive complaints on (i) Atrocities on women and offences against women, (ii) Deprivation of women of their rights relating to minimum wages, basic health and maternity rights, (iii) Non-compliance of policy decisions of the Government relating to women, (iv) Rehabilitation of deserted and destitute women and women forced into prostitution, (v) Atrocities on women in custody, and take up with authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures; (e) Assist, train and orient the non-Government organization in the State in legal counseling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid. (f) Inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women’s institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if found necessary; (g) Perform functions in relation to any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government. (f) Inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women’s institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if found necessary; (g) Perform functions in relation to any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government. (2) The State Government shall cause all the recommendations or report, or any part thereof, as may be presented to it by the Commission under sub-section (1), which relates to any matter with which the State Government is concerned, to be laid before the Legislature of the State along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations of the Commission and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of such recommendations. (3) The commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-section (1), have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely : (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath ; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witness and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.” Functions of the Manipur State Commission for Women as provided under Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 : “(1) Subject to the provision of this Act, the Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions : (a) investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguard provided for women under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and other laws and recommend steps to be taken by the State Government for effective implementation of such safeguard; (b) undertake promotional and educational research so as to suggest ways of ensuring due representation of women in all spheres and identify factors responsible for impending their advancement, such as, lack of access to housing and basic services, inadequate support service and technologies for reducing drudgery and occupational health hazard and for increasing their productivity; (c) Take up cases of violation of the provisions of the Constitution and other laws relating to Women in the State with the appropriate authorities; (d) Look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters relating to : (i) Deprivation of women’s rights; (ii) Non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection and also to achieve the objectives of equality and development of women; (iii) Non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines, and instructions aimed at mitigating hardship and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women and to take up issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; 1. call for special studies or investigation into specific problems or situation arising out of discrimination and atrocities against women and identify the constraints so as to recommend strategies for their removal; 2. evaluate the progress of the welfare and development of women in the state; 3. call for special studies or investigation into specific problems or situation arising out of discrimination and atrocities against women and identify the constraints so as to recommend strategies for their removal; 2. evaluate the progress of the welfare and development of women in the state; 3. inspect or cause to be inspected jails, remand homes, women’s institutions or other places of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the authorities concerned for remedial action, if found necessary; 4. make periodical reports of the Government on any matter pertaining to women and in particular various difficulties under which women toil; 5. any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government; 6. funding of litigation involving issues affecting a large body of women; 7. participate and advice on the planning process of socio-economic development of women. (2) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (d) of sub-section (1), have all the powers of a Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit and, in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely : (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath; (b) Requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) Receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) Any other matters which may be prescribed.” It would be seen from the above that contents of the 2 (two) Sections particularly clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 and clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 are more or less same. Therefore, the purports and intents of the 2 (two) Sections also cannot be different. The interpretation of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as given above is therefore, squarely applicable for interpretation of Section 10 of Manipur State Commission for Women Act. Therefore, the purports and intents of the 2 (two) Sections also cannot be different. The interpretation of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as given above is therefore, squarely applicable for interpretation of Section 10 of Manipur State Commission for Women Act. Keeping that in view, it may be concluded that the provisions of Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act particularly clauses (a), (c) and (d) broadly empowers the Commission for special studies on issues concerning women, to receive or admit complaints relating to atrocities on women and deprivation of their rights for ascertaining of facts for the purpose of taking up the matter with the concerned authority/authorities for remedial measures and for extending legal assistance etc. in fighting for their rights. However, no power or authority is given to the Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal, doing so would amount to acting beyond the power given in the Act. In view of the conclusion drawn above and in view of the provision in clause (2) of Section 10 of the Act, I am of the opinion that the Commission has the power not only to entertain such complaint but to direct the parties to appear in order to ascertain whether there is substance in the complaint or not. Because, the Commission would be able to take up such matters with the authorities concerned, for appropriate remedial measures only after ascertaining the prima-facie of the complaint. 8. In this case, it appears from the submission of the learned counsels that the stage of the complaint case before the State Commission is at the stage of inquiry. At that stage, as stated above, the Commission has the power of Civil Court as provided under Clause (2) of Section 10 of the Act. As such, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 pending before the Commission. Therefore, petitioners shall submit applications before the Commission for recalling the warrant of arrest issued against them by showing proper cause, within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and the commission shall consider the same as per law. Till such time the applications of the petitioners are disposed, they should not be arrested in pursuance of the warrant issued against them. Till such time the applications of the petitioners are disposed, they should not be arrested in pursuance of the warrant issued against them. Let a copy of this order be issued to the petitioners and also a copy of the same be sent to the Commission. With this, writ petition is disposed.