Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1502 (MAD)

P. Praveen v. Rajesh, Inspector of Police

2025-03-14

K.MURALI SHANKAR

body2025
ORDER : The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024, in C.C.No.10 of 2023, dated 27.08.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.The petitioner, as defacto complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, against the respondents/police officials and the same was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.851 of 2021. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, after conducting necessary enquiry, has taken cognizance of the case in C.C.No.10 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 326, 211, 220, 177, 179 of IPC, vide order dated 10.02.2023. After the accused have entered into to appearance, charges came to be framed on 18.12.2024 and since all the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was ordered. 3.During trial, five witnesses including the petitioner herein/complainant came to be examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and when the case was pending for examination of additional witnesses, the petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024, seeking orders to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate, upon taking the petition on file in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024 has passed the impugned order, dated 27.08.2024 and the same is extracted hereunder : “ Heard, Both side on enquiry, this petition is not maintainable as per law and Crl.M.P.No.2199/2024 is dismissed. This petition is become infractuous.” 4.It is evident from the records that the petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.2199 of 2024 to add the charge under Section 166 IPC r/w Section 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 and the learned Magistrate has passed the docket order, dated 27.08.2024, dismissing the petition as not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. No.2199 of 2024 are cryptic and non-speaking orders. 5. It is pertinent to note that the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. No.2199 of 2024 are cryptic and non-speaking orders. 5. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint lodged by his wife's uncle, FIR came to be registered against him in Crime No.286 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the Pattukkottai Town Police Station and that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.287 of 2021 against the three named and three unnamed persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC. 6.The case of the petitioner is that due to the attack made by his wife's uncle and others, he suffered permanent privation of the left eye and fracture to both nasal bones along with multiple fractures to the facial bones; that the respondent police had only registered the case for simple offence under Section 324 of IPC instead of the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC; that the petitioner approached the Inspector of Police, Pattukkottai, but instead of taking action against the accused, who had injured the petitioner, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for the case against him in Crime No.286 of 2021 and subsequently, he was released on bail; that the petitioner has again approached the Inspector of Police on 23.10.2021 expressing his grievance about their biased and lethargic action, but the Inspector of Police, along with Sub Inspector and Special Sub Inspector of Police attached with the Pattukottai Town Police Station had beaten him mercilessly and thrown him in the lockup half nakedly and caused grievous injuries to him; that the petitioner's nasal bones were broken and he lost 60% of vision in the right eye making him a person with disability and fracture to left orbit and left zygomatic arch; that subsequently, at the intervention of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Pattukkottai and was admitted for inpatient treatment; that since his condition has become critical, dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai; that the petitioner was thereafter, shifted to Government Hospital, Thanjavur, for further treatment and was treated as inpatient for 17 days; that the Police in order to cover up the brutality that was unleashed on him registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.1106 of 2021 on 24.10.2021 based on a complaint given by one Grade-I constable Sudharani attached to the Police Station as if the petitioner had damaged the CCTV camera available in the police station and that therefore, he was constrained to lodge the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the police officials. 7. The petitioner alleged that the police officials' brutal acts infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, constituting a violation of human rights, life, liberty, and dignity. 7. The petitioner alleged that the police officials' brutal acts infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, constituting a violation of human rights, life, liberty, and dignity. Having established a prima facie case against the respondents/accused for human rights violations, the petitioner argued that the case should be committed to the Court of Sessions. Due to the learned Magistrate's continued proceedings with the trial, the petitioner was compelled to file the present petition under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. 8.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh reported in AIR 2021 SC 64 , relied on by the petitioner and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder : “ 18.Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission, which is then to utilise its powers, more particularly under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, for redressal of such complaints, but also to Human Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each District of every State/Union Territory under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigation agency in order to further process the complaint made to it.” 9.It is also necessary to refer the decision of this Court in K.Dhamodharan Vs. R.V.Narbabi passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4529 of 2006 and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder : “25.Detaining a person in the police station for eight long hours without providing any food may not attract any offence under the Indian Penal Code. But definitely it constitutes violation of human right of life, liberty and dignity of an individual. Therefore, it is not a simple case where some offences under the Indian Penal Code have been allegedly committed by the accused as against the complainant. But definitely it constitutes violation of human right of life, liberty and dignity of an individual. Therefore, it is not a simple case where some offences under the Indian Penal Code have been allegedly committed by the accused as against the complainant. Human Rights Violation as per the definition of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is prima facie made out in the complaint.” 10.In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the petitioner alleged that he was attacked brutally by the police officials in the police station, resulting in grievous injuries. Although the original complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. did not mention human rights violations or the application of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the petitioner did accuse the police officials of a brutal attack and its consequences. The mere citation of an incorrect legal provision or failure to cite a relevant provision does not disqualify the petitioner from seeking relief or prevent the court from considering and granting it. The petitioner's failure to invoke the Protection of Human Rights Act in the original complaint does not preclude him from raising this plea subsequently. 11. It is settled law that the Human Rights Court has no power to entertain the complaint directly without the committal proceedings taken by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned. In the case of Dr.S.Sourubarani and another vs.C.Selvi reported in 2004 SCC Online Mad 1082 , this Court has held as follows : “10. Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (Act 10/1994) defines the 'Human Rights Court' as follows, under Section 30: For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if- (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or (b) a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force. Here, the case was taken cognizance of by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is a Sessions Judge, not in dispute. Here, the case was taken cognizance of by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is a Sessions Judge, not in dispute. The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') deals with constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices, under Chapter II, classifying the criminal Courts, defining territorial divisions, limiting the power to impose imprisonment and fine, etc. section 193 of the code while limiting the power of Courts of Sessions, in taking cognizance of offences, says: Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code. Thereby curtailing the jurisdiction of the Courts of Sessions taking cognizance of any offence, directly. In other words, the courts of session has no original jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offences, unless committed by a Judicial Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 209 of the Code. In this case, admittedly, the case has been filed only before the Court of Session, since that court is notified as Human Rights Court, as provided under Section 30 of the Act. Though under Section 30 of the Act, power is given to the State Government, to specify for each district, a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court, to try the offences under this Act, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, it does not say that the Human Rights Court shall try the offences not withstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C. No such power is conferred upon the Human Rights Courts, to try the offences, ignoring the procedure contemplated under the Code. In this context, we have to see some other special enactments, where Court of Sessions has been conferred with similar power, to try the cases, arising under those acts.” 12.Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that since the petitioner has alleged human rights violation, the learned Magistrate is duty bound to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. As already pointed out, the learned Magistrate, without considering the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective and without taking note of the legal position, has passed the non-speaking orders and as such the same cannot legally be sustained. As already pointed out, the learned Magistrate, without considering the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective and without taking note of the legal position, has passed the non-speaking orders and as such the same cannot legally be sustained. Hence, this Court concludes that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the learned Magistrate is to be directed to take necessary steps to commit the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur, which was notified as Human Rights Court in the District of Thanjavur. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1353 of 2024 in C.C.No.10 of 2023, dated 27.08.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukkottai, is set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, is directed to take necessary steps for committing the case to the Principal Sessions Court/Human Rights Court, Thanjavur within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.