APHC010625992023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 32213 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-12 [3552] Poola Pothuraju and others ...Petitioners Vs. The State Human Rights Commission and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Pillix Law Firm Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. M. K. Rajkumar appearing vice Mr. P. Narahari Babu, GP for Home CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 23rd December, 2025. Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ : The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2022, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners was held to be not maintainable on the ground that the remedy of the petitioners lay elsewhere. 2. In the complaint filed before the Commission, the following were the reliefs prayed. i) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to pass orders against the Respondents No. 3 to 7 removing them from their respective services for violation of human rights of the petitioners by subjecting them to the custodial torture, illegal detention, unwarranted violence and for malicious prosecution by undertaking biased and unfair investigation in F.I.R. No. 605 of 2021 with a sole intention to 2 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 implicate petitioners in a false case and for damaging their reputation in the society. ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) to each petitioner towards the compensation for the unbecoming conducts of the Respondents No. 3 to 7. iii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to initiate the criminal proceedings against the Respondents No. 3 to 7 for their willful disobedience of directions under the law and violation of various laws, guidelines established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. 3. The case of the complainants before the Human Rights Commission primarily was regarding the custodial torture and police atrocity perpetrated by respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein who are respondent Nos.3 to 7 in the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that during the investigation of F.I.R. No.605 of 2021 under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, three accused namely Shaik Mohhamad Jani, Shaik Aasik and Yanabarala Ashok were arrested and subsequently sent to judicial custody by the learned Magistrate. 4. It was alleged that respondent No.5 i.e. the Inspector of Police, Gurajala Police Station orally summoned the petitioner/complainant No.3 to the Police Station on 05.11.2021, who subjected him to unwarranted violence and custodial torture forcing him to confess that the alleged crime of lurking house- trespass, house-breaking by night and theft was committed by him. 5. Petitioner/Complainant No.3 claims that he had been illegally detained in the Police Station for a complete day and was released at about 10 PM on 3 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 06.11.2021 from the Police Station. In the complaint, it was further alleged that complainant No.3 was again summoned by the Inspector of Police, Gurajala Police Station, on 08.11.2021, orally, where he was illegally detained till 10.11.2021. 6. It was also alleged that on 09.11.2021, the Inspector concerned had conducted unofficially, raids in the gold shop of complainant No.3 in Sattenapalle Town and took away gold articles weighing 70 grams and silver articles weighing 18.5 kilograms from the shop of petitioner/complainant No.3 in the instant petition. It was alleged that neither were the gold ornaments and silver articles legally seized nor were they deposited with the jurisdictional Court but were retained in the custody of respondent No.5. 7. It was alleged that a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in the High Court bearing W.P.No.26362 of 2021. After filing of the Habeas Corpus petition, it was alleged that, respondent No.5 in the complaint made a personal call to the petitioner’s counsel, offering certain amount of money to withdraw the case. It was further stated that the entire telephonic conversation between the counsel and respondent No.5 in the complaint, was recorded, wherein it was alleged that respondent No.5 in the complaint had admitted the illegal detention of complainant No.3 besides admitting that gold and silver ornaments had been taken away illegally and that the same would be returned. 8. The complainants further alleged that on 29.11.2022 some police constables headed by respondent No.6 i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police, 4 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 Piduguralla Police Station came to the residence of complainant No.3 and took away the said complainant at about 11 PM to the Police Station without following due process. It was alleged that he was brutally tortured the whole night by the officers in the Police Station. Thereafter, it was alleged that the said complainant was yet again illegally confined and detained for complete three days where he was subjected to extreme inhumane torture and almost took him to the stage of death. Besides this it was alleged that complainant No.2 was also subjected to abuse and filthy language. 9. It is in that background that the State Human Rights Commission came to consider the complaint and dismissed the same as not being maintainable. What was held by the State Human Rights Commission was as under: “In our considered view, the reliefs sought for under serial numbers 1 and 2 in the petition are beyond the purview and the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commission and that in so far as the relief number 3, the Commission is precluded from intervening at this stage as the investigations into crimes are in progress and as the Hon'ble High Court is having seisin over the matter and as the remedy for violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court lies before the Hon'ble High Court. In our considered view, if the 1st petitioner was illegally taken into custody by police officials, who appear to be the police officers of Piduguralla Police Station, the petitioners ought to have sought the efficacious relief by filing a writ of Hebeaus corpus as they have done earlier. If the petitioners are of the view that the police have violated the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 19866/2022, even then the remedy of the petitioners lies before the Hon'ble High Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioners could not satisfactorily answer as to why the petitioners are not approaching the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate efficacious relief and are insisting upon a notice in this petition to the police, which would not serve the immediate purpose, which the petitioners desire. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petition is not maintainable and that the remedies of the petitioners, which the law permits, lie elsewhere. 5 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 Hence, this petition is closed as not maintainable leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies, which the law permits and which lie elsewhere.” 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents, the stand taken is that, upon interrogation of the accused Shaik Mohammad Jani, Shaik Aasiq and Yanabarla Ashok, it was admitted by the said accused that the stolen property was given to petitioner No.3/Sathuluri Ashok Raja and his friend Chakka Mahesh, whereafter their names were incorporated in the list of accused. 11. It is however denied that petitioner No.3/Sathuluri Ashok Raja was ever unofficially summoned to the Police Station. It is however stated that he was arrested on 01.12.2022 and only then brought to the Police Station after recording his confession. Allegations of torture and physical abuse have specifically been denied, apart from denying the alleged raid on the house of the petitioner No.3. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. On a perusal of the order impugned, it clearly appears to us that the State Human Rights Commission committed an error in law in holding that the complaint filed by the complainants/petitioners was not maintainable. The allegations of custodial torture and inhumane treatment were clearly spelt out in the complaint which was filed before the State Human Rights Commission. 6 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 14. In terms of the powers vested in the Commission under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (for short, “the Act of 1993”) the Commission does have the power to make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or his family members as the Commission may consider necessary and even to recommend initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons and to take further action as it may think fit. For facility of reference, Section 18 of the Act of 1993 is reproduced hereunder: “18. Steps during and after inquiry:- The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:— “(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority— (i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (iii) to take such further action as it may think fit;” (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary; (c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; 7 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 (e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission; (f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.” 15. The view expressed by the State Human Rights Commission that reliefs 1 and 2 were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Commission, is therefore a view which was totally erroneous in law. 16. Not only this, the view expressed by the State Human Rights Commission that even if the petitioner was illegally taken into custody of the police officials, the remedy lay by filing a writ of Habeas Corpus and in case the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.19866 of 2022 were violated, it would be open to the complainants to seek appropriate efficacious relief from the High Court, is also a view which is untenable in law, inasmuch as it has the effect of refusing to exercise jurisdiction even when the allegations on the face of it would justify the entertainment of the complaint by the State Human Rights Commission. 17. The mere fact that there was a remedy of filing a Habeas Corpus petition at the appropriate stage, would not be a ground to deny the complainants a forum for making a prayer for an appropriate action under the Act of 1993. 8 HCJ & CGRJ WP_32213_2023 18. Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the State Human Rights Commission for considering the complaint afresh and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is not out of place here to mention that even if there was a Habeas Corpus Petition pending before the High Court, yet nothing could prevent the Sate Human Rights Commission to seek approval under Section 12(b) of the Act before proceeding further in the matter. 19. The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN