SHRC No Longer Exists For Remand Back: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC Closes Case On Ground Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court was considering a Petition against the order of SHRC recommending payment of ₹1.00 lac as compensation to Respondent No.7 to be shared by all the petitioners and registeration of FIR under Section 330 RPC.

Noting that the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) no longer exits to remand the matter back to it, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court closed proceedings in a case where it found violation of principle of natural justice.
The Court was considering a Petition against the order of SHRC recommending payment of ₹1.00 lac as compensation to the Respondent No.7 to be shared by all the petitioners and registration of FIR under Section 330 RPC.
The division-bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta observed, "......before condemning the petitioners and imposing penalty upon them, it was incumbent upon the Commission to summon all the petitioners and provide them adequate opportunity of being heard. The impugned order of the Commission is, therefore, in violation of the principle of natural justice and cannot sustain.......We could have sent back the case to the Commission for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners but we are told that the State Human Rights Commission does not exist."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Garima Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sugandh Sharma.
Facts of the Case
Respondent No.7 was brought to District Hospital, Rajouri in an injured condition and the person accompanying him levelled allegation of torture against the then SHO and some other unidentified police personnel. Upon preliminary investigation, it was found that Respondent No.7 was arrested under Section 364 RPC of Police Station and was put to sustained interrogation to ascertain his involvement with militants.The Respondent stated before the Inquiry Officer that during his custody, he was subjected to torture by the petitioners. On the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, an FIR under Section 330 RPC was registered.The I.O concluded that the case of torture alleged against the petitioners was not proved and prepared the closure report to be submitted to competent Court of law. The Respondent No.7 perhaps was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police against the police personnel and therefore, approached the State Human Rights Commission through the residents of Darhal alleging his tortured at the hands of the petitioners. The Commission without summoning the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity to defend themselves passed the impugned order holding them guilty of subjecting the Respondent No.7 to torture.
It was submitted by the official respondents that the Investigating Officer did not find any truth in the allegations of the Respondent No.7 and thus recommended the closure of the case.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that it is evident that the petitioners have been condemned unheard.
"We have gone through the impugned order in its entirety but could not find anything even suggesting that the petitioners were ever put on notice in the enquiry or they were given any opportunity to defend themselves. The investigation conducted by the I.O in FIR No. 89/2006 coupled with the medical opinion does not support the allegation of the respondent No.7 that he was tortured by the petitioners while he was in custody of the police in FIR No. 71/2006," the Court observed.
It mentioned that it is aware that jurisdiction of the then State Human Rights Commission was not dependent upon the investigation, if any, conducted by the police into the allegations, however, before condemning the petitioners and imposing penalty upon them, it was incumbent upon the Commission to summon all the petitioners and provide them adequate opportunity of being heard.
"The impugned order of the Commission is, therefore, in violation of the principle of natural justice and cannot sustain. That apart on the self same allegations the police has conducted the investigation and admitted the case as not proved. However, that aspect has not been given due consideration by respondent No.2, more particularly, when the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 would have all the opportunity to lodge a protest petition once the closure report is proposed to be accepted by the competent Court of law. The respondent No.2 has, thus, failed to appreciate the matter in its true perspective and has, by an exparte order, imposed the penalty on the petitioners," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Mohd. Farooq Khan & Ors. vs. State Human Rights Commission & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners- Advocate Garima Gupta
Respondents- Advocate Sugandh Sharma, Advocate Monika Kohli, Assistant Advocate General
Click here to read/ download Order