Allahabad High Court: In a petition challenging the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission and seeking a writ of prohibition directing the deceased’s parents not to proceed with case, contending that the State Human Rights Commission (‘SHRC’) overstepped its jurisdiction, particularly concerning the custody of the children, the division bench of Rajan Roy and Brij Raj Singh, JJ. finding that the Commission, prima facie, may not have exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter, as custody is governed by other specific legal remedies, stayed the SHRC’s orders regarding the custody of the children and their production before the Commission. It also clarified that the petitioners must cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation and that the deceased’s parents could initiate separate custody proceedings as per the law, ensuring that these do not interfere with the criminal case.
Background
The case revolves around the suspicious death of the daughter-in-law of the petitioners 1 and 2, the deceased passed away under mysterious circumstances, which prompted her parents to suspect foul play. As a result, they filed a criminal case against the deceased’s husband, who is the son of petitioner 1. The husband is currently in custody in connection with the case. The case was registered for charges under Sections , , , and of the .
The petitioners 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased and her husband. Following the death of their mother, a criminal case was lodged by the husband. On 11-11-2024, the deceased’s parents submitted an application to the Director General of Police, U.P., expressing concerns regarding the children’s whereabouts and alleging that they were critical witnesses to the incident surrounding their mother’s death. The application raised concerns about the children’s welfare, claiming that they were in danger, and requested that they be traced and handed over to the deceased’s parents who were the only ones concerned about their wellbeing.
A copy of this application was forwarded to the Human Rights Commission, which took cognizance of the matter, despite the absence of an explicit allegation of human rights violations. Based on this application, the Human Rights Commission issued an order to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to provide a report on the children’s custody. The report indicated that the children were in the custody of their grandparents.
On 14-11-2024, the Human Rights Commission passed a detailed order, directing the Investigating Officer to produce the children before the Commission on 19-11-2024.The Commission believed that it was necessary to record their statements concerning the custody issue. It further directed that the children’s custody be immediately taken by the Investigating Officer and that they be lodged in a Child Care Home until the Commission hearing. Subsequent orders were passed, reiterating the need for the children’s statements to be recorded. Notably, it was brought to the Commission’s attention that petitioner 2 was unwell and could not appear before the Commission with the children. As a result, the Commission directed the Investigating Officer to verify this claim.
Therefore, this petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission. The petition also seeks to direct the deceased’s parents not to proceed with the case.
Analysis and Decision
The Court found that significant issues regarding the jurisdiction of the SHRC were raised in the writ petition, particularly concerning the custody of the children. The Court observed that while the Investigating Officer had already recorded the children’s statements, there was no obstruction from the petitioners regarding further statements, as the investigation had been transferred to the Crime Branch.
However, the Court took issue with the SHRC’s orders dated 14-11-2024 and 5-12-2024, which directed the recording of the children’s statements before the Commission for custody purposes, finding that the Commission may have exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter, as custody is governed by other specific legal remedies.
The Court thus stayed the SHRC’s orders regarding the custody of the children and their production before the Commission. It also clarified that the petitioners must cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation and that the private opposite parties could initiate separate custody proceedings as per the law, ensuring that these do not interfere with the criminal case.
[Prabha Shankar Dwivedi v State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 10623 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Gaurav Mehrotra, Abhineet Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent: Shikhar Anand, C.S.C.
The post appeared first on .