Bombay HC Quashes MSHRC Order Directing Police Inspector To Pay ₹2L Compensation To Woman For Negligence In Investigation
|The Bombay High Court quashed an order passed by the Member of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) by which it directed a Police Inspector to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to a woman for negligence in the police investigation.
A 51-year-old Police Inspector had filed a criminal writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of MSHRC.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan remarked, “By the impugned order dated 6th July 2022, compensation was awarded to the complainant, which is to be paid by the petitioner. As noted aforesaid, admittedly, the petitioner was not heard, much less notice was issued to the petitioner in the said proceeding/complaint. We find that principles of natural justice have not been complied with and that the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission ought to have issued notice to the petitioner, having regard to the nature of allegations.”
Advocate Shekhar Ingawale represented the petitioner while APP Gauri S. Rao and Advocate Rupesh Shinde represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The personal grievance from the petitioner’s side was that the MSHRC passed an order on the basis of the statements of several witnesses and doctor, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing him in clear breach of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the petitioner was not heard by the MSHRC before passing the order and this led to serious miscarriage of justice. It was further submitted that it was only after the order was passed that the petitioner learnt of the same by which MSHRC directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant and directed the DGP to lodge a departmental enquiry against him and others for gross negligence. The counsel for the petitioner contended that it was incumbent to issue summons as mandated under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The APP for the State submitted that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the order was passed and that the MSHRC did not comply with the said provision. Whereas, the counsel for the respondent i.e., the complainant opposed the petition. The complainant had filed a complaint before the MSHRC in 2017 expressing suspicion vis-à-vis the death of her son and non-investigation of the same by the police, despite her son having died under mysterious circumstances. As per her, the police registered a case of ‘Accidental Death’ i.e., a case of “Death by rash and negligent driving by an unknown driver of the vehicle” and as such did not investigate the case properly.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “It appears that the petitioner learnt of the said order only when notice was issued to the petitioner for complying with the same i.e. Clauses – ‘b’ and ‘c’ of the order dated 6th July 2022. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a Review Application before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The said Review Application was dismissed by the learned Member, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission vide order dated 26th April 2023.”
The Court, therefore, passed the following order –
(i) Recommendations made in Clauses – ‘b’ and ‘c’ of the impugned order dated 6th July 2022 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, are quashed and set aside;
(ii) Consequently, the order dated 26th April 2023 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, in Review Application No.5059 of 2022, is also quashed and set aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, for fresh consideration, after hearing the petitioner and other officers;
(iv) Before hearing the matter on merits, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission is requested to give notice to the petitioner and other officers for issuing directions as regards grant of compensation and/or departmental enquiry to be initiated against them;
(v) The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission after hearing the parties, to decide afresh uninfluenced with the findings recorded in the impugned order and the recommendations made in clauses – ‘b’ and ‘c’. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission is further requested to return its findings afresh, particularly in respect of clauses – ‘b’ and ‘c’.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition to the above extent and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title- Abasaheb Anandrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:33278-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shekhar Ingawale and Anand S. Patil.
Respondents: APP Gauri S. Rao and Advocate Rupesh Shinde.