1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.915 OF 2010 Vijay S/o.Ramsing Jadhav, Age-44 years, Occu-Private Service, R/o. N-8, Navbharat Housing Society, Plot No.5, CIDCO, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2. Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, Through secretary, 9, Hajarimal Somani Road, Opp. CST, Mumbai. 3. Dr.Kanchankumar Chate, Age-45 years, Occu-Govt. Service, At present working as Police Inspector, With Crime Branch, Police Commissioner Officer, Aurangabad. 4. Ganpat Ramjirao Rathod, Age-50 years, Occu-Govt. Service, At Present working as Assistant Police Sub-Inspector with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.U.B.Gawali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 27/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of Writ of Certiorari for challenging the order passed by the Learned Member of the State Human Rights Commission in Case No.6/4/2005. The learned Member of the State Human Rights Commission, dismissed the complaint filed by the present petitioner, seeking compensation for false implication in a criminal trial. 2. A complaint seeking compensation for false implication came to be filed by the petitioner during the pendancy of the criminal trial. The learned Member of the State Human Rights Commission, at para no.5(iv), has observed that, "it was not appropriate to deal with the complaint on merits as the matter was subjudiced before the competent Court." Learned Member of the State Human Rights Commission has relied upon clause (h) of Rule 8 of The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations. The aforesaid regulations read thus : Complaints not ordinarily entertainable : The Commission may dismiss, in limine, complaints of the following nature : (h) matter is sub-judice before a court or tribunal; 3 The learned Member of the State Human Rights Commissioner, according to me, was perfectly justified in disposing of the complaint with certain directions on the ground that the matter was sub- judiced in the Court of Law. Rule 8 of the aforesaid Regulations permits the Commission to dismiss in limine the complaints where the matter is sub-judice before a court or a tribunal. Undisputedly, when this complaint was decided by the learned Member of the State Human Rights Commission, the trial was pending before the Court of Law. Eventual acquittal of the present petitioner in the said trial wound not render the order passed by this State Human Rights Commission as non est. The complaint came to be disposed of by the Commission on the ground of pendancy of the trial. This is a writ petition filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari and we do not find that there are any jurisdictional errors committed by the State Human Rights Commission to warrant any interference in the present writ petition. 3. The present petition, therefore, being sans merit, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT. 2010/cri.w.p.915-10