CWP No. 2076 of 2010 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 2076 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Barjinder Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions*, which are directed against the common order dated 12.11.2009 (P-7) passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. 2. The writ petitions have been initiated by Barjinder Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Goel and Balwinder Singh, DSP. On the basis of the enquiry made by the Commission the impugned report dated 12.11.2009 (P-7) was filed. The petitioners were prima facie indicted. The principle ground of challenge is that the Commission is not clothed with any jurisdiction to substitute itself for the regular course. It has been urged on the basis of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Jatt Ram vs. Punjab State Human Rights Commission and another 2005(3) CWP No. 2076 of 2010 -2- PLR 297 that the Commission is merely a recommendatory body in view of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') and, therefore, issuance of directions of binding nature so as to take away the rights of the parties before any regular Courts is impermissible. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy, we are not inclined to go into the detailed facts. The operative part of the impugned report passed by the Commission needs to be read, which is as under :- “8. In view of the above discussion, the Commission rejects the defence pleas of the above named three indicated police officers, and a recommendation is made to the state Government to initiate department action against the said officer, under their services rules, as deemed proper. It is further recommended to award an interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to Vishal Kumar, the victim of harassment at the hands of the indicated police officers. The Government may recover the amount of interim compensation from the indicated police officers, as deemed proper. With these observations, the proceedings initiated in this case are closed. 9. The State authorities are directed to submit to the Commission the action taken report under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, before the next date i.e. 15.03.2010.” 3. Mr. S.S. Sidhu learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first sentence before the comma in para 8 of report is the offending part of the report sent by the Commission to Government because it would amount to adjudication of the rights of the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner once the Commission decides that the defence raised by the three petitioners was rejected this would certainly prejudice their rights before the regular Courts of law where they may have to face criminal or civil proceedings. Mr. Sidhu further submits that rest of the order is recommendatory in nature and there cannot be any possible objection. CWP No. 2076 of 2010 -3- 4. Mr. Sarju Puri learned counsel for respondent No.5- complainant has argued that the order passed by the Commission does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference of this Court. In that regard Mr. Puri has invited our attention to the observations made in paras 43 and 44 of the Division Bench judgment in Jatt Ram's case (supra). According to Mr. Puri Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Act has been interpreted by the Division Bench to show that the Commission is a body of experts created for the purpose of making recommendations to the State Government in such matters which might not have been brought to the notice of the State Government otherwise. It is for that purpose that Section 17 of the Act has specifically provided that while enquiring into the complaints, the Commission is required to call for information or report from the appropriate Government with regard to the allegations of violation of human rights in the complaint. Mr. Puri has referred to the findings recorded by the Division Bench that it was primarily for the State Government to take remedial action and the Commission is only a catalytic body. He has also drawn our attention to the observations made in para 49. 5. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties we are of the considered view that the submission made by Mr. Sidhu with regard to the offending portion of para 8 deserves to be accepted. Once the Commission is found to be a recommendatory institution by the Division Bench of this Court and the Commission is only to act as a catalytic body then it would not have any jurisdiction to reject the defence version posed by the petitioner before the Commission. If such a course is adopted it would amount to adjudication of the rights of the parties and their case before the regular Courts might be prejudiced. Applying the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court Jatt Ram's case (supra) the following portion of the order occurring in para 8 is set aside :- CWP No. 2076 of 2010 -4- “the Commission rejects the defence pleas of the above named three indicated police officers,” 6. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed. However, rest of the recommendations would stand. 7. Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. 8. Copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 05, 2011 ‘sp’ * Sr. No. CWP No. Parties Name 1 22270 of 2011 Barjinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab & others 2 1714 of 2010 Sanjeev Kumar Goel, vs. State of Punjab & others 3 2192 of 2010 Balwinder Singh, DSP vs. State of Punjab & others (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 05, 2011 ‘sp’