A.G.SAMATHUVAM versus S.MARIAPPAN

High Court of Madras

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

A.G.Samathuvam v. S.Mariappan - Crl.R.C.(MD).No.458 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2420 (21 July 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 21/07/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.458 of 2007

and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007

A.G.Samathuvam ... Petitioner Vs

1.S.Mariappan

2.K.Baskaran ... Respondents Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge cum District Human Rights Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2007 dated 22.06.2007 and to remand the matter back to the said Court.

For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents ... Mr.P.Rajendran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :ORDER

This petition is focussed to set aside the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge cum District Human Rights Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2007 dated 22.06.2007 and to remand the matter back to the said Court.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the grievance of the petitioner would run thus: His prayer is focussed on the misapprehension of the existing law as though under Human Rights Act there is right to file complaint before the Human Rights Court. In this connection, I would also like to reiterate the dictum of this Court reported in 2005(1) L.W.(Crl.) 139 (Dr.S.Sourubarani & another v. C. Selvei), an excerpt from it would run thus:

"contention urged that the Sessions Judge, who is designated under the Human Rights Act, itself is not maintainable, in view of the fact that he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence without committal, as contemplated under Section 193 Crl.P.C. - Special Court, which is a Court of Sessions, has not been conferred with any special power, to take cognizance of the offence directly, not withstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C. and in this view, a Committal is an absolute one, as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. - Therefore, as such taking of the case on file by the Court of Sessions which is designated as Human Rights Court, ignoring 193 is bad in law - Direction could be given to the court concerned, to send the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate concerned, having jurisdiction, to commit the case, if offences are made out"

The above excerpt would make the point clear that the Human Rights Court can entertain cases only on committal from the Magistrate Court.

4. Hence the petitioner is directed to file the complaint before the Magistrate concerned and thereupon the learned Magistrate if deems it fit shall commit the case to the Sessions Court and thereupon the Sessions Court would be able to take cognizance of the offence.

5. With the above direction, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 is also closed. sj

To

1.Principal District Sessions Judge

cum District Human Rights Court,

Virudhunagar District,

Sriviliputhur.

2.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.