Campus Violence By Teachers Is A Very Serious Matter, Cannot Be Condoned By Receiving An Apology Letter: Madras High Court

Justice G Jayachandran thus dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case registered against the teaching staff of Pachaiyappa's Trust for protesting. The court added that bypassing the criminal law procedures by obtaining an apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus was not in the interest of justice.

“An affidavit of apology cannot be entertained to quash the prosecution launched for offence of this kind. Criminal Procedure Code provides for bargain, or plead guilty or compound. Bye-passing the procedures and quashing criminal prosecution, by obtaining apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus by the teaching staff is not in the interest of justice. Hence, quash petition is dismissed,” the court observed.

The case was registered against the teaching staff for staging a protest when the college committee meeting was to be held on the campus under the chairmanship of an interim administrator appointed by the court. The court noted that when the interim administrator, a former judge of the High Court, attempted to streamline the administration, the staff had protested against the same. The interim administrator thus filed a police complaint which was taken up for investigation and a final report was filed.

The petitioners submitted that when some of the accused persons had approached the court earlier with a similar prayer, the court had allowed the prayer after getting an affidavit of apology. The petitioners informed the court that they were ready to give an apology letter and the case may be quashed considering the same.

The court however observed that campus violence was a serious matter that could not be condoned by just receiving an apology letter. The court further noted that when the prosecution had made out a case for a criminal offense, the petitioners should plead guilty in the manner known to law instead of filing an affidavit of apology.

Thus, the court was not inclined to allow the prayer and refused to quash the case. However, the court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court seeking a remedy to plead a bargain or compounding.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Elayaraja

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Udaya Kumar for R1 Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

Case Title: Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another

Case No: CRL.OP.No.13726 of 2024