Executing Security Bond For Good Behaviour Under Section 109 CrPC Cannot Be Construed As Criminal Proceedings: Madras High Court

Relying upon a previous order of the court, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that the purpose of such proceedings was to prevent commission of offence. Therefore, even though there is registration of FIR, the persons cannot be construed as accused.

“There is yet another aspect in this matter. The petitioner was not involved in any criminal case as such. One of us (GRSJ) sitting singly had vide order dated 04.01.2018 in W.P(MD)No.19985 of 2017 (R.Ajithkumar Vs The Chairman, TNUSRB & Another) held that security proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C cannot be construed as criminal cases and that though FIR is registered for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, the persons named in the FIR cannot be construed as accused. The very object of such proceedings is to prevent commission of offence. It was held therein that even if an applicant omits to mention the details of such proceedings, the same cannot be put against the applicant and that Rule 14(b)(ii) and (iv) of TNPSS Rules cannot be invoked in such cases. The said approach deserves to be applied in the present case also,” the court said.

The court thus came to the rescue of S Saravanan who had approached the court after he was denied appointment as Police Constable. Saravanan informed the court that he had applied for the post of Police Constable Grade II, Jail Warden and Fireman Grade II- 2019 notified by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. He further informed the court that he had successfully cleared the written examination and the physical efficiency test and his name was included in the provisional selection list. However, later the Superintendent of Police declined to appoint him by invoking Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

The authorities defended their action and submitted that Saravan had not disclosed the fact that an FIR was registered against him under Section 109 (Security for good behaviour from suspected persons) CrPC and that he was produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The authorities submitted that due to his involvement in the criminal case and on account of suppression of the same, Saravanan had rendered himself disqualified for Selection as Police Constable Grade II.

Saravanan had initially challenged the rejection memorandum before the high court which had closed the plea after directing the Superintendent of Police to revisit the same. However, the Superintendent reiterated his stand prompting Saravanan to approach the High Court again. Dismissing his petition, a single judge observed that Saravanan had deliberately suppressed the fact that he was involved in proceedings under Section 109 of Cr.P.C and had executed bond for good behaviour on July 2, 2012. Saravanan then appealed against this order before the division bench.

The division bench noted that proceedings against Saravanan was initiated when he was hardly 16-years-old. The court observed that as per Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the Act shall not suffer disqualification attached to the conviction of the case.

The court thus reiterated that the Tamil Nadu Service Rules could not prevail over the JJ Act and thus the earlier proceedings could not be raked up against Saravanan. It said that the "authorities failed to note that bond was obtained from the petitioner when he was juvenile".

"It could not have been raked up against the petitioner. Even records should not have been maintained so as to cause prejudice to the juvenile," it added. That apart, the court highlighted that security proceedings could not be construed as criminal proceedings.

The court thus allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to appoint Saravanan to the post and send him for training at the earliest opportunity. The court added that Saravanan's seniority will be reckoned on par with those selected through the 2019 common recruitment and that he would be entitled to monetary benefits from the date of his actual appointment.

Case Title: S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Jeganathan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

Case No: W.A(MD)No.831 of 2022