1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2748 OF 2009 Subhadrabai Govind Shinde. ... ... ... Petitioner. Versus Director General of Police & Ors. ... ... ... Respondents. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner. Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 26TH NOVEMBER,2009. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned APP for the Respondents. This petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions against Respondent No.1 to forthwith comply with the directions of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission dated 30th March, 2009 in Case No. -69/28/2006-07, which is annexed as Exhibit “D” to the petition with other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that one Maruti Anna Pawar and others, 2 against whom a complaint filed by the Petitioner was pending in Baramati Court, have threatened the complainant and her family members so as to compel them to withdraw the complaint and that they forced Maruti Shinde to drink liquor and when he became unconscious, he was beaten to death by giving him kicks and fists. Inspite of the Petitioner lodging several complaints with the Respondents and particularly Respondent No.5, no action in the matter was taken. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Rui, Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune, disclosing the cause of death of her son Maruti Govind Shinde as due to head injury with haemmhorage. Even an A.D. was conducted in the matter. Therefore, the Petitioner approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. On 19th January, 2009, one of the Honourable Member of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission was of the opinion that there was a need for the proper investigation in the matter as the police has taken a very casual approach and were not careful while conducting investigation. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission also directed Respondent No.2 to issue necessary orders / directions for reinvestigation of the matter at the hands of State CID Crimes at the early date and to submit compliance report to the Commission and inspite of that till date no action has been taken regarding the same and therefore the Petitioner has approached this court by invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 3 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was waiting for the State CID Crimes to carry out the directions but the State machinery did not take any action in the matter and therefore she has approached this Court for seeking directions to the Respondents to implement the order dated 30th March, 2009 passed by the Honourable Mr. Justice V. G. Munshi (former Judge, High Court, Bombay), Member, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. 5. Chapter IV of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides for procedure so as to inquire into the complaints. Section 18 of the Act provides for steps during and after inquiry and clearly defines the power of the Commission in the matter. Clause (b) of Section 18 even provides that the Commission may approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary. 6. In the present case, the Petitioner, who has approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission is required to approach this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction instead of the Human Rights Commission. 7. On going through the provisions of Section 17 and Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, we find that the Human Rights Commission has sufficient powers vested in it to implement its orders and if it finds itself incapable then it can approach this Court or the Supreme Court of India. In the present case though the Human Rights Commission has passed an order it has failed to follow up the same. The function of the Commission does 4 not come to an end only by passing order but to see that its orders are duly implemented. 8. Therefore, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission to seek compliance of its order dated 30th March, 2009 passed in the above matter from the authorities concerned and if it finds that it is not possible for it to seek compliance of its orders from the respondents, nothing prevents the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission to approach this Court or the Supreme Court of India as provided under clause (b) of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. 9. This writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 10. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Sd/- (J. N. PATEL, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)