JUDGMENT : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. 1. The petitioners herein stand accused of having committed offences under Sections 170, 419, 353, 506(1) r/w.34 of IPC and are facing trial in C.C No.343 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2010 at about 20.00 hrs when the fifth respondent, namely, Tmt.V.Roselin Savio, was on duty as the Sub Inspector of Police of Veeravanallur Police Station, the accused entered the station premises by falsely posing themselves as if they are coming from Human Rights Commission and authoritatively demanded certain documents pertaining to one Suresh who was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (shortly known as Goondas Act). When the said Sub Inspector of Police wanted to know the identity of the accused, they not only refused but also threatened her with dire consequence. Thereupon, the said Sub Inspector of Police informed her superior officials. Since the accused intentionally entered the police station by impersonating themselves as officials representing the Government Human Rights Commission and made the Sub Inspector of Police to believe so and demanded production of case documents, Crime No.161 of 2010 was registered on the file of the Veeravanallur Police Station. It was subsequently transferred to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelveli City who laid the final report against the petitioners. The same was taken on file in CC No.343 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. To quash the said proceedings, 4 out of the 5 accused have filed this Criminal Original Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that One Suresh, a Dalit Youth who was a resident of Veeravanallur was subjected to human rights abuse. Therefore, a Non Governmental Organization known as Dalit Foundation constituted a fact finding team to go into the said issue. The said Dalit Foundation and Peoples Watch had organized a training programme from 11.08.2010 to 20.08.2010 at Pillar House, Madurai. The programme schedule envisaged field work on 15th and 16th August, 2010. As a part of the training, the accused visited Veeravanallur to gather materials relating to the said issue. They interviewed the family members of the said Suresh. The said Dalit Foundation and Peoples Watch had organized a training programme from 11.08.2010 to 20.08.2010 at Pillar House, Madurai. The programme schedule envisaged field work on 15th and 16th August, 2010. As a part of the training, the accused visited Veeravanallur to gather materials relating to the said issue. They interviewed the family members of the said Suresh. Thereafter, they went to Veeravanallur Police Station to enquire the Station House officer about the status of the case pertaining to the arrest of the said Suresh and the alleged ill treatment meted out to him in the police station. 4. According to the petitioners, when they went to the police station, neither the Inspector of Police nor the Sub Inspector of Police were available. After obtaining the telephone number of the S.I of Police, they were about to leave the police station. At that time, the fifth respondent was coming towards the police station. She said to be known to the first petitioner. She, therefore, invited all the team members to have a cup of coffee with her. When they waiting for the coffee to be served, the sixth respondent, who was the in-charge Inspector of Police, arrived. When he became aware of the purpose of their visit, his attitude changed. Based on his information, the seventh respondent who was the then Deputy Superintendent of Police S.Ramu arrived. Since by then darkness set in, the petitioners wanted to leave the police station. But they were not allowed to leave the police station. They were detained and then taken to the house of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi. Only then, the team members realized that they have been implicated in a criminal case and also arrested. They were remanded to judicial custody. The were granted bail only after 10 days. The petitioners thereafter filed Crl OP(MD) No.10130 of 2010 for quashing the F.I.R. But, the said criminal original petition was rendered infructuous in view of the filing of the final report. Therefore, they filed Crl OP(MD)No.11303 for quashing the final report. Crl OP(MD)Nos.11348 and 12006 of 2010 were also filed seeking transfer of investigation. The said petitions were allowed on 28.09.2010 and the investigation was transferred from the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelvei City. Therefore, they filed Crl OP(MD)No.11303 for quashing the final report. Crl OP(MD)Nos.11348 and 12006 of 2010 were also filed seeking transfer of investigation. The said petitions were allowed on 28.09.2010 and the investigation was transferred from the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelvei City. Since the third respondent also filed a final report implicating the team members and the same was taken on file by the learned Trial Magistrate in CC No.343 of 2012, the present criminal original petition was filed for quashing the said proceedings. 5. Shri.Hendri Tiphagne, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued with considerable force and passion. He raised very many contentions. He reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum. He took this Court through the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. Finally, he placed reliance on the report dated 10.11.2010 submitted by the National Human Rights Commission. NHRC has been arrayed as the eighth respondent in this petition. The conclusions and recommendations of the NHRC are as follows : "12.Conclusions : - The five arrestees were bonafide trainees of Dalit Foundation & People's Watch and they were on a legitimate preplanned training exercise and scheduled field visit on 15.08.10 and 16.08.10 (Para-10.2-8). - The 5 trainees of Dalit Foundation did not commit any offence in visiting PS Veeravanallur for seeking information of the alleged arrest, illegal detention and torture of accused Suresh(Para-11.1 11.6) - Three entries were made at 20.00 Hrs as per Station General Diary dated 15.08.2010 of PS Veeravanallur. The three entries cannot be correct at the same time. (para 8.4 8.6, 8.16-8.19). - The obtaining of correct addresses from the five accused persons after sustained interrogation and confusing replies from 5 trainees would take at least 30/40 minutes. (Para-6.10.1). - The 5 Trainees, went inside the PS Veeravanallur much earlier than made out by the Police (Para 8.12-16 & 8.18), ie., earlier than 20.00 hrs, which makes the trainees version of timings credible. (Para-8.17). - WSI-Reselin was earlier posted in PS Tirupavanan, District Manamadurai and was acquainted with Shri Gnana Thiraviyam, one of the male trainees while working there. WSI Roslyn has falsely denied her earlier acquaintance with Shri.Gyana dhiraviam. (Para-8.17). - WSI-Reselin was earlier posted in PS Tirupavanan, District Manamadurai and was acquainted with Shri Gnana Thiraviyam, one of the male trainees while working there. WSI Roslyn has falsely denied her earlier acquaintance with Shri.Gyana dhiraviam. (Para 9.11) - The situation at PS Veeravanallur at the time of the stated incident ie.20.00 hrs was not such that anyone had to rescue WSI-Roselin from the clutches of 5 accused trainees. (8.4-8.6) - The meeting of 5 accused persons/victims with WSI-Roselin in the evening of 15/8/2010 was cordial and friendly. But the situation changed at about 2045 hrs with the arrival of Inspector/SHO-Murugeshan and SDPO/Cheranmahadevi S Ramu, (para 7.9 12, 8.10). - The Police did not inform the arrested trainees about the grounds of arrest. Only the Judicial Magistrate Cheranmahadevi, told them about the offence under which they were arrested. (Para 7.13, 9.13) - The required ingredients of sections 170/353/416/506(i) IPC of FIR No.161/10 PS Veeravanallur, are not satisfactorily fulfilled. This is discussed in detail in Xssue No.1f this report. (para 8.1 8.22) - The trainees were implicated in a false by the Police due to some reason connected to their enquiry into the allegation of torture of accused Suresh. - The allegation of torture of Suresh is found to be true and the Police were apprehensive that this fact would be brought out. (Discussed in Issue 1). - The independent witnesses named by the Police are pocket witnesses arranged later. The detailed firs CD made out on 15/0/10 by the IO does not mention the presence of the two independent witnesses at the time of the alleged incident. (P-351-379). - The police have concealed evidence including letters of authority carried by each trainee issued by People's Watch, large training manuals and other evidence which would reveal the fact that they were trainees. (Discussed in Para 9). - The accused Suresh, was arrested from a temple festival and brutally beaten in full view of public. The allegation of torture by police is confirmed by Dr.Chandrasekeran (P.287 & 699), the Ambasamudram Sub-Jail Entry records on 10/07/2010. (P.695) and statement of Dr.Simson Ravi, Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital (P-291-293). - The accused/victim Shri.Gnana Thiraviyam who was a diabetic patient was not given any treatment/medicine by the Police/Jail Authorities due to which his blood sugar rose to level of 480 and he suffered ill-health. His medical papers are enclosed. (P.1415-1431). 14. Recommendations : 14.1. (P.695) and statement of Dr.Simson Ravi, Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital (P-291-293). - The accused/victim Shri.Gnana Thiraviyam who was a diabetic patient was not given any treatment/medicine by the Police/Jail Authorities due to which his blood sugar rose to level of 480 and he suffered ill-health. His medical papers are enclosed. (P.1415-1431). 14. Recommendations : 14.1. The Hon'ble Commission may advise the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to direct the concerned Public Prosecutor to withdraw the Case FIR No.161/10 u/s 170/353/416/506(ii), PS Veervanallur, against all the five innocent victims namely (i)Ms.Bharti, (ii).Priya, (iii)Sudha, (iv) Gnana Thiraviyam and (v) Anandan, under the provisions of Section 321 Cr.PC, expeditiously. 14.2. The five trainees/victims, were arrested in a false case vide FIR No.161/10 dated 15.08.10 of PS Veeravanallur. The three female and two male trainees/victims remained in Judicial Custody till 24.08.10 and 25.08.10 respectively. 14.2.1. These five trainees have undergone the public shame and suffering of being imprisoned for 8/9 days with common criminals for no fault of theirs. Therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may advise the Tamil Nadu Govt. to grant adequate compensation to all the five trainees/victims, for trauma they had suffered in jail and the defamation in the eye of the known as well as other public persons. 14.2.2. Thus, the Commission may advise the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to initiate departmental action against the police officials namely WSI-Roselin, Insp-Murugesan and Dy. SP-S. Ramu, who are responsible for the arrest of all the five innocent trainees/victims in false case vide FIR No.161/10, PS Veeravanallur, and unravel the reason due to which they had arrested the five innocent trainees/victims persons, in the false case. 14.3. The mandatory process of Health Screening of Prisoners was not followed by the officials of the Sub-jail, Ambasamudram, and the procedure is not being taken with due seriousness by the jail officials. The Hon'ble Commission may consider to advise the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to direct the Director General (Prisons), Tamil Nadu to ensure the compliance of provisions of Tamil Nadu Jail Manual as well as the compliance of the guidelines of NHRC in this regard. 14.4. Subsequent to Act No.2 of 2010, to amend the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide its order dated March 13, 2010 (P/725) has prohibited the use of the term "Human Rights" in the naming of all the organizations involved in this field. 14.4. Subsequent to Act No.2 of 2010, to amend the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide its order dated March 13, 2010 (P/725) has prohibited the use of the term "Human Rights" in the naming of all the organizations involved in this field. The Hon'ble Commission may consider to advise the Law Division to review this order and submit opinion as the amendment impinges on the fundamental freedoms and is against the spirit of the 'Human Rights' legislation to spread awareness of 'Human Rights'. " 6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in view of the categorical pronouncement of the NHRC in its report that the case on hand is false, this Court ought to allow this criminal original petition as prayed for and not only quash the impugned prosecution but also direct the Government to initiate disciplinary action against the respondents 5 to 7 and also award damages to the petitioners herein. 7. I propose to consider first the contention that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of the report submitted by the NHRC. There are at least two decisions of the Madras High Court which have held that the report of the Human Rights Commission has only a recommendatory value. In (A.Soundarajan v. Govt. of T.N,2002 5 CTC 122), it was held as follows : "10.I have gone through the entire records and the report of the State Human Rights Commission as well as the provisions of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act). On a perusal of the provisions of the said Act, I am unable to hold that the report of the Commission would result in barring any person to approach the Civil or Criminal Court. The object of the Act is to ensure better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected thereto or which are incidental thereto. On a perusal of the provisions of the said Act, I am unable to hold that the report of the Commission would result in barring any person to approach the Civil or Criminal Court. The object of the Act is to ensure better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected thereto or which are incidental thereto. The only provision in the Act which requires to be examined in the context of the issue arising for consideration in this Writ Petition would be Section 13(4) and Sec,13(5) of the Act which is extracted below: "(4)The Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and when any offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of the Commission, the Commission may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded to him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (5) Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code, and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (2 of 1974)" 11.A perusal of the above said provisions would disclose that the Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and that the proceedings of the Commission will be deemed to be a Judicial Proceedings only in the context of certain specific provisions mentioned therein. None of the provisions mentioned therein could result in barring any party to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court as the case may be. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 only relate to the power of the Commission, refusing to give evidence or to obstruct the evidence, etc. None of the provisions mentioned therein could result in barring any party to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court as the case may be. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 only relate to the power of the Commission, refusing to give evidence or to obstruct the evidence, etc. None of the provisions under the Act could clothe the report of the Human Rights Commission as a bar to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court. 12.The nature of the enquiry before the State Human Rights Commission is summary in nature and the conclusion arrived at by the Commission cannot deprive the aggrieved persons to take appropriate action either before a Civil Court or before a Criminal Court. Just as the learned Senior Counsel had commented about the Revenue Divisional Officer's enquiry and witnesses having been examined behind the back of the petitioners, the manner of enquiry before the Commission is also summary. The witnesses have not been subjected to any cross-examination. The official status of the two authorities are certainly different, but the nature of enquiry does not differ. Therefore, persons feeling aggrieved by the Commission's finding that there is no violation of Human Rights, cannot be deprived of appropriate remedies before the appropriate Court. To hold so, would be in fact violation of human rights, it is also necessary to bear in mind that even in cases where Commission awards any compensation or finds any one guilty of violation of human rights, there is no specific power to execute the award or to punish. The Commission can only recommend to the Government to take further action, or approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for the implementation of its award. In fact, in W.P No.15652/1995 dated 19.02.1998, I had directed the implementation of the award of compensation to the Victim (National Human Rights Commission v. State of Tamil Nadu). 13.Therefore, having regard to the nature of the enquiry and proceedings before the Commission, in cases where the commission finds that there is no violation of human rights or custodial regulations, such a finding cannot be a bar for the Government or the victims to approach the regular Civil or Criminal Courts for appropriate action or remedy. 14. 13.Therefore, having regard to the nature of the enquiry and proceedings before the Commission, in cases where the commission finds that there is no violation of human rights or custodial regulations, such a finding cannot be a bar for the Government or the victims to approach the regular Civil or Criminal Courts for appropriate action or remedy. 14. The right of the police personnel to file the complaint before the Magistrate or the right of a citizen to file a private complaint cannot be stated to be taken away as a result of an adverse report made by the Commission. Therefore, if the respondents on consideration of the material evidence have come to a conclusion that further action has to be taken either before the Civil or Criminal Court or departmental action be initiated, there is no fetter on the part of the respondents to do so." 8. In Rajesh Das v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, (2010) 5 CTC 589 , it was held as follows : "41. To sum up:- (i) What is made under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act by the State Human Rights Commission is only a recommendation and it is neither an order nor an adjudication. (ii) Such a recommendation made by the State Human Rights Commission is not binding on the parties to the proceeding, including the Government. (iii) But, the Government has an obligation to consider the recommendation of the Commission and to act upon the same to take forward the objects of the Human Rights Act, the International Covenants and Conventions in the back drop of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution within a reasonable time. (iv) In the event of the Government tentatively deciding to accept the recommendation of the State Human Rights Commission holding any public servant guilty of human rights violation, the Government shall furnish a copy of the report of the Commission to the public servant concerned calling upon him to make his explanation, if any, and then pass an appropriate order either accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the Commission. (v) Until the final order is passed by the Government on the recommendation of the Commission, neither the complainants nor the respondents in the human rights cases can challenge the recommendation of the commission as it would be premature except in exceptional circumstances. (v) Until the final order is passed by the Government on the recommendation of the Commission, neither the complainants nor the respondents in the human rights cases can challenge the recommendation of the commission as it would be premature except in exceptional circumstances. (vi) On the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, if the Government decides to launch prosecution, the Government have to order for investigation by police which will culminate in a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (vii) On the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, if the Government decides to pay compensation to the victims of human rights violation, the Government may do so. But, if the Government proposes to recover the said amount from the public servant concerned, it can do so only by initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against him under the relevant service rules, if it so empowers the Government." 9. Such being the legal status of the report of the National Human Rights Commission, it would be futile on the part of the petitioners to contend that this Court should accept the said report as a gospel truth and grant relief to the petitioners on that basis. There is one other aspect of the matter which has to be gone into. Section 10 (2) of the Protection Human Rights Act, 1993 reads as under : "10. Procedure to be regulated by the Commission : (1)............... (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the Commission shall have the power to lay down by regulations its own procedure." 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid statute, the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 have been made and notified. Regulation No.8 (b) reads that ordinarily, complaints with regard to matters which are sub-judice in nature are not entertainable by the Commission. A mere reading of the report dated 10.11.2010 indicates that the investigation agency was aware of the fact that the matter was already sub-judice. This is evident from Paragraph No.13.1 of the Commission's report which reads as under : "13.1.As per faxed report dt.18.09.2010 of SP/Tirunelveli, on 04/09/2010 the charge sheet FIR No.161/10, was prepared and filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi vide CC No.191 of 2010 the same was admitted in the court record, on 06/09/2010. This is evident from Paragraph No.13.1 of the Commission's report which reads as under : "13.1.As per faxed report dt.18.09.2010 of SP/Tirunelveli, on 04/09/2010 the charge sheet FIR No.161/10, was prepared and filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi vide CC No.191 of 2010 the same was admitted in the court record, on 06/09/2010. However, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, had passed an interim stay dated 02.09.2010 in respect of filing of charge sheet in FIR No.161/10." 11. Of course, this exclusion of matters which are sub-judice from jurisdiction of the Commission appears to be self imposed. If cannot be equated to the matters set out in Section 36 of the Act. Section 36 of the Act reads as under : "36.Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission (1).The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. (2).The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed." 12. In N.C. Dhoundial vs. Union Of India, (2004) 2 SCC 579 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bar contained in Section 36(2) is a jurisdictional bar. In view of the fact that the matter is sub-judice and since the report has only a recommendatory value, this Court is unable to accept the petitioner's contention that the report should be accepted as such and relief granted to these petitioners accordingly. 13. I should not forget that I am only exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision (Rishipal singh vs. State of U.P, (2014) 7 SCC 215 ) held that while exercising the power under this provision, the courts have to only look at the un-controverted allegation in the compliant whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. 14. In this case, there are divergent versions as to what transpired in the police station. The case of the prosecution is that the accused posed themselves as officials of the Government human rights commission. 14. In this case, there are divergent versions as to what transpired in the police station. The case of the prosecution is that the accused posed themselves as officials of the Government human rights commission. The case of the petitioners herein is that as volunteers they went to gather details regarding allegations of human rights abuse said to have been committed on an innocent Dalit Youth. This Court will definitely be converting itself into a trial court if it were to pronounce judgment as to which version is true and correct. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to do so. 15. But then, this Court can still grant substantial relief to the petitioners herein. In the very same decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that a bare perusal of Section 482 of Cr.PC makes it crystal clear that an object of exercise of power under this Section is to prevent abuse process of court and to secure ends of justice. There cannot be any straight jacket formula with definite terms. It always depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to an abuse of legal process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. When the court comes to the conclusion that quashing proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then, the court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. 16. In the present case, even as per the prosecution version, no adverse consequence has ensued. It is not as if the police were misled by the alleged acts of the accused or that they have done something which they were not supposed to do. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners are associated with human rights organizations. Three members of the team are young women. The events have transpired only within the police station premises. The version projected by the prosecution appears to be exaggerated. The fact remains that the accused were arrested and remanded to custody and they came out on bail only after 10 days. 17. The suffering undergone by the accused is such that, this Court is of the view that continuation of the impugned prosecution would only amount to an abuse of legal process. The events had taken place more than eight years ago. 17. The suffering undergone by the accused is such that, this Court is of the view that continuation of the impugned prosecution would only amount to an abuse of legal process. The events had taken place more than eight years ago. One of the accused is said to have settled abroad. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that quashing the impugned proceedings alone would serve the ends of justice. What is before me is not a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or a civil proceeding. Therefore, the question of awarding damages will not arise. For the very same reason, this Court cannot give any direction to the Government to take disciplinary action against the police personal concerned. The only relief that this Court grants is quashing the impugned proceedings in C.C No.343 of 2012 as a whole. Though there are five accused and only four of them are before this Court, the benefit of this order will enure in favour of the non petitioning accused Ms.Bharathi also. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.