DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
11th December 2021
JUDGES:
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Justice C.T. Ravikumar
PARTIES:
Petitioner (s): Anu Kumar
Respondent (s): State (UT Administration), & Anr.
SUBJECT
In the present judgement, the Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had passed adverse order and observations against a non-present third party. The Court stated that such action was outside the ambit of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
OVERVIEW
1. In the present case, a criminal appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India, against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 20th November 2018, where the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., directed the authorities to also proceed against the appellant in connection to the case registered against one Sanjeev Singh and Amrik Singh under Section 19 and Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:
a) The complainant on 13th May 2015 registered an FIR, which alleged that his daughter (herein referred to as ‘child’) had been sexually harassed by one Jagjit Singh, who was the conductor of the school bus that ferried the child to the school run by Sanjeev Singh.
b) It was alleged that, on 07th May 2015, when the complainant's daughter was dropped by the school bus, the father found that the child was perturbed and itching on her private parts. On further examination, it was revealed that the bus conductor Jagjit Singh used to do ‘wrong acts with her with his hand.’
c) After the investigation, Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, convicted Jagjit Singh under Section 354, Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code 1908 (IPC) and Section 10 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
d) During the course of events, Chandigarh Commission for Protection of Child Rights (UT) on 16th May 2015, recommended that another FIR should be registered against Sanjeev Singh (school administrator) and against the owner of the bus Amrik Singh. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge summoned Sanjeev Singh and Amrik Singh to face trial for commission of an offense under Section 19 punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Sanjeev Singh appealed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
e) Analysing the testimony of witnesses, the High Court noted the chain of events where the family of the child had raised various complaints to school authorities. After discovering that the child was being sexually harassed by the bus conductor, the family of the child approached the school the next day and narrated the incidents to Amrik Singh and to the Principal of the school (Appellant in the present case) who failed to act into the matter. The family again narrated the incident to the Principal in the form of a written complaint and the principal promised suitable legal action. The father once again visited the school to know the fate of their complaint on 11th May 2015 and on 12th May 2015,the principal informed them that he had proved on record the complaint made to school authorities. When the school authorities failed to take any action, the father of the child lodged a criminal complaint.
f) The High Court in course of the proceedings noted that the school authorities had been purposely lax in dealing with the issue to screen the culprit and further noted that ‘besides the petitioner, his associate transporter and even the Principal of the school, as has come in the evidence, need to be hauled up for this collusion inter-se between them.’ The Court then exercised power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed the lower court, where the matter was pending ‘to ensure that even the Principal, who had the knowledge of this incident of abuse of a minor school girl, is not let off the hook and to take appropriate action and to proceed ahead against her as well, fully in accordance with the law.’
g) Aggrieved by the said order, the principal(appellant) approached the Supreme Court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 482- Saving of inherent power of High Court.
- Section 319- Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 10- Punishment for aggravated sexual assault.
- Section 19- Reporting of offences.
- Section 21- Punishment for failure to report or record a case.
Indian Penal Code, 1908
- Section 354- Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
- Section 354(a)- Sexual harassment and punishment for Sexual Harassment.
ISSUES
1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can proceed to issue directions and make observations against a third party (the appellant)?
JUDGMENT
1. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant was neither before the Court during trial ‘nor given any opportunity before passing of the impugned judgment much less without referring to any specific material forming part of the charge sheet which could indicate his complicity in the commission of the alleged crime.’
2. The Court further observed that the High Court erred in its judgment and should not have ventured ‘into an area which would adversely affect a third party to the proceedings.’ The Court noted that there wasn’t any credible material against the appellant that warranted such intervention of the High Court.
3. The Court further noted that the High Court could have directed the Trial Court to proceed against the appellant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. if the Trial Court after the recording of the evidence found that some more persons were involved in the commission of the subject crime.
4. The Court accepted the appeal and directed the Trial Court to proceed in the matter pending before it, strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of India, in the present judgement, has rightly pointed out the error in the judgement of the High Court. Multiple pronouncements have stated that the High Courts must judicially exercise their inherent powers so as not to create a conflict of law or unnecessary burden on a common man.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
