Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 22 (MAN)

Lalmunlen Serto v. State of Manipur

2022-02-18

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 initiated by the Manipur State Commission for Women. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: On 25.3.2019, the third respondent has filed a complaint before the Manipur State Commission for Women alleging, inter alia, that in the month of April, 2018, while she was staying in Bangalore and working, she came to know the first petitioner. Thereafter, they fell in love and had physical relationship. After he left Bangalore in the last week of January, 2019, the first petitioner informed her over telephone that his family members did not accept their relationship and thereafter, he stopped calling her over phone. Since the attempt made by the third respondent to reconcile the relationship with the help of her relatives failed, she had lodged a complaint with the second respondent Commission. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the first petitioner. 2.1. Upon receipt of the complaint, the second respondent registered a case in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 against the petitioners and issued summons for appearance on 9.5.2019. Though summons were delivered on 29.5.2019, the petitioners could not appear before the Commission. On 30.5.2019, when the petitioners visited the office of the second respondent, they came to know that the second respondent has already issued Warrant of Arrest against them. On 3.6.2019, the Commission recalled the Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioners. 2.2. On 12.6.2019, the petitioners have filed an application questioning the authority of the Commission to adjudicate and determine the rights of the parties and the said application has been rejected by the Commission. On that day, the second respondent examined and recorded the statement of the first petitioner. Similarly, the second respondent also recorded the statement of the third respondent. 2.3. On 7.8.2019 when the petitioners along with their counsel appeared before the second respondent, the second respondent forced the petitioners to admit the allegation leveled by the third respondent against the first petitioner and the second respondent used different words systematically for causing threat and intimidation to the petitioners when they denied the allegation. The second respondent also insisted for paying certain amount of money as compensation to the third respondent. The second respondent also insisted for paying certain amount of money as compensation to the third respondent. Since the petitioners have not committed any wrong, they are not ready to pay any compensation to the third respondent. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 pending on the file of the second respondent. 3. The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 28.3.2019, the third respondent lodged a complaint to the Chairperson of the second respondent for taking necessary legal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with a great loss of her modesty and reputation before the society as she is living in a miserable life. It is stated that in the complaint the third respondent further stated that the first petitioner ruined her life and her future carrier. Upon receipt of the complaint, the second respondent along with her members took a statement of the complainant on 4.4.2019 and had issued summons to the petitioners on different dates for personal appearance on 9.5.2019. But due to non-appearance of the petitioners, the case was adjourned and fixed on 21.5.2019 for appearance of the petitioners. Again the petitioners failed to appear before the Commission and, as such, the Commission again issued summons to the petitioners for appearance on 12.6.2019. 3.1. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the second respondent denied the allegation that the second respondent started giving pressure to the petitioners to admit the allegation made by the third respondent against the first petitioner; used different words systematically for causing threat and intimidation to the petitioners and insisted for paying certain amount of money as compensation. On 12.6.2019, the second respondent took the statement of the third respondent and petitioners and the stage of the complaint case is the initial stage and the second respondent Commission has not done beyond the scope of Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006. 3.2. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that on 7.8.2019, the third respondent and the petitioners were present in person and both the parties agreed to settle the matter through a mutual consent of the parties and as prayed for both parties, the second respondent adjourned the case to 20.8.2019. 3.2. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that on 7.8.2019, the third respondent and the petitioners were present in person and both the parties agreed to settle the matter through a mutual consent of the parties and as prayed for both parties, the second respondent adjourned the case to 20.8.2019. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 16.9.2019 due to the upcoming 15th Foundation the Celebration of the Manipur State Commission for Women scheduled on 15.9.2019, as the Chairperson and all the staff members have to engage for organizing the said event. The rejection of the miscellaneous application alleged by the petitioner is false and in fact, the said application has not been rejected by the second respondent. 4. The third respondent filed counter stating that she has lodged a complaint before the second respondent against the petitioners. The petitioners have not filed the postal receipt to prove that they had received the summons only on 29.5.2019 and as such the petitioners put to strict proof of the allegations made in the writ petition. Since the writ petition is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Kh. Santa, learned counsel for the second respondent and Ms. N. Savitri, learned counsel for the third respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the allegations made by the third respondent in her complaint are false and fabricated and that no illegality was committed by the petitioners for causing any loss to the modesty and reputation of the third respondent. Further, the first petitioner did not commit anything to ruin the life and future career of the third respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the second respondent started giving pressure to the petitioners to admit the allegation made by the third respondent against the first petitioner and that the second respondent intimidated the petitioners when they denied the allegation. The second respondent had also insisted for payment of amount to the third respondent as compensation. According to learned counsel, since the petitioners have not committed any wrong, they are not ready to pay the compensation to the third respondent. 8. The second respondent had also insisted for payment of amount to the third respondent as compensation. According to learned counsel, since the petitioners have not committed any wrong, they are not ready to pay the compensation to the third respondent. 8. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the second respondent has transgressed its authority available under the Act and that the second respondent attempted to decide the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal, which is beyond the power given in the Act. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that there is no whisper of allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3 in the complaint, however, the second respondent issued summons to them as if they have committed wrong. Since the petitioners are facing threat from the second respondent to admit the allegation made by the third respondent, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 initiated by the second respondent. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that upon receipt of the complaint from the third respondent, they had registered the case and issued summons for appearance of the petitioners. Since the petitioners failed to appear on the fixed date, the second respondent issued Warrant of Arrest and subsequently, the same has been recalled on the application filed by the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the second respondent has not done anything beyond the scope of the Act. In fact, before the Commission, both parties have agreed to settle the matter and accordingly, prayed for an adjournment. Recording the said submission, the Commission adjourned the case to 20.8.2019 and due to the upcoming 15th Foundation the Celebration of the Manipur State Commission for Women scheduled to be held on 15.9.2019, the cases pending before the Commission were postponed upto 16.9.2019. Since the second respondent received notice in the writ petition on 21.10.2019, the further proceedings of the case was kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the writ petition. 12. Since the second respondent received notice in the writ petition on 21.10.2019, the further proceedings of the case was kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the writ petition. 12. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the petitioners have failed to file the postal receipt or letter or memo for receiving the post on 29.05.2019 to prove that they have received the summons only on 29.5.2019. 13. Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that the third respondent is living in a miserable life because of the loss of her modesty and reputation before the society. In fact, the first petitioner promised to marry her and as a token of love, he desires to keep premarital relationship with her. When the third respondent refused to accept the relationship which the first petitioner desire, then he forcibly had sexual relationship with the third respondent. Since the first petitioner failed to keep up the promise and since the acts of the petitioners caused the third respondent a great loss of her modesty and reputation before the society, she had filed the complaint before the second respondent. The proceedings of the complaint case pending before the second respondent cannot be quashed as the same involved a detailed inquiry. 14. This Court considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent has transgressed its authority available under the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 and that the second respondent attempted to decide the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal, which is beyond the power given in the Act. According to the petitioners, the functions of the second respondent are enumerated under Section 10 of the Act, particularly, Section 10(a)(c) and (d) empowers the second respondent for special studies on issues concerning women to receive or admit complaints relating to atrocities on women and deprivation of their rights for ascertaining on facts for the purpose of taking up the matter with the concerned authority 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 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. Thus, admitting the complaint of the third respondent and thereby directing the petitioners to appear before it would amount to assuming the function of a Court or Tribunal, and, as such, acting beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings pending in Complaint Case No.26 o 2019 before the second respondent Commission deserves to be quashed. 16. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to extract Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006: '10. Functions of the Commission:- (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.' 17. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the power of the State Commission for Women constituted under the Orissa (State) Commission for Women Act, 1993 and it was held that the said Commission was broadly assigned the role of (i) taking up studies on issues of economic, educational and healthcare that may help in overall development of women of the State; (ii) to gather statistics concerning offences against women; (iii) probe into complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the concerned authorities for remedial measures; and (iv) to 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. 18. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. 18. In Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the function of the Orissa State Commission for Women in reference to Section 10 of Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993. On a reading of the said judgment, it is clear 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, 1993. For better appreciation, Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 is also extracted hereunder: 'Section 10 - 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 al 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. (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.' 19. Thus, it is clear that contents of the 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. The purport and intent of the above two Sections also cannot be different. The interpretation of Section 10 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above is squarely applicable for interpretation of Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006. Following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006, particularly clauses (a), (c) and (d) broadly empower the second respondent 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 for remedial measures and for extending legal assistance etc. in fighting for their rights. However, no power or authority is given to the second respondent Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties like a Court or Tribunal. 20. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the provision in clause (2) of Section 10 of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second respondent Commission has the power not only to entertain such complaint, but to direct the parties to appear before it in order to ascertain whether there is substance in the complaint or not. The second respondent 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. 21. In the case on hand, the second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 28.3.2019, the third respondent lodged a complaint to the Chairperson of the second respondent Commission for taking up necessary legal actions against the respondents in connection with a great loss of her modesty and reputation before the society received at the hands of the first petitioner and also she is living in a miserable life. After recording the statement of the third respondent on 04.04.2019, the second respondent, registered the complaint as Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 and issued summons for the appearance of the petitioners on 09.05.2019. Since the petitioners failed to appear before the Commission, it had also issued Warrant of Arrest and later on, the warrant has been recalled, which fact was admitted by both parties. 22. However, the petitioners contend that the second respondent started giving pressure to the petitioners to admit the allegation made by the third respondent against the first petitioner and the second respondent had also used different words systematically for causing threat and intimidation to the petitioners when they deny the allegation. In fact, the said plea of the petitioners is not supported by any materials. Only in order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioners have invented the said ground. The specific averment of the second respondent is that it had not given any pressure to the petitioners with the allegation made by the third respondent against the first respondent. 23. The allegations leveled against the petitioners refer to false promise made by the first petitioner to marry the third respondent and thereby had sexual relationship with her and thereafter, failed to honour the promise. Thus, she faced with a great loss of her modesty and reputation before the society due to the acts of the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3, who are parents of the first petitioner. According to the third respondent, she is now living a miserable life. This Court is of the view that the allegation leveled against the first petitioner cannot be brushed aside. However, at this stage, this Court cannot also come to the conclusion that the allegation of the third respondent is false. According to the third respondent, she is now living a miserable life. This Court is of the view that the allegation leveled against the first petitioner cannot be brushed aside. However, at this stage, this Court cannot also come to the conclusion that the allegation of the third respondent is false. It is a matter of inquiry, for which, the second respondent Commission has issued summons for the appearance of the petitioners and after inquiry, as per law, the second respondent would take up the matter with the concerned authority for remedial measures. 24. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the stage of the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 pending on the file of the second respondent is at the stage of inquiry only. At that stage, as stated above, the second respondent has the power of Civil Court as provided under Clause (2) of Section 10 of the Act. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 26 of 2019 pending before the second respondent and the petitioners have to face the inquiry. 25. It also appears that on 12.6.2019, the second respondent recorded the statements of the third respondent and the petitioners as per Section 10(1)(a) read with Section 10(2) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 is in initial stage and the second respondent Commission will follow the procedure for dealing with the said complaint. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the second respondent has not done anything beyond the scope of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006. 26. It is reiterated that the second respondent Commission has the power not only to entertain the complaint lodged by the third respondent, but to direct the parties, including the petitioners against whom complaint was made, to appear in order to ascertain whether there is substance in the complaint or not. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in issuing summons to the petitioners by the second respondent Commission for the appearance of the petitioners. 27. As stated supra, the allegation leveled by the petitioners against the second respondent Commission are not supported by any materials. In the absence of any material, it cannot be concluded that the second respondent Commission acted beyond the scope of the Act. 27. As stated supra, the allegation leveled by the petitioners against the second respondent Commission are not supported by any materials. In the absence of any material, it cannot be concluded that the second respondent Commission acted beyond the scope of the Act. In fact, as stated supra, the second respondent Commission is competent to receive complaints and take up the grievances raised in the complaint with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures. 28. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the second respondent Commission has not done anything beyond the provisions of the Manipur State Commission for Women Act, 2006 and the allegation levelled against the second respondent by the petitioners is baseless. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 29. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 30. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.