Section 482 CrPC - High Court Can't Pass Adverse Orders Or Observations Against Third Party Who Is Not Before It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently observed that the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC cannot issue directions for proceeding against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order.

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar was considering a special leave petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated November 20, 2018 in which the High Court had issued direction to proceed against the appellant (Principal of School at relevant time) in connection with the offence registered by Police Station, Chandigarh ("impugned judgement").

In the impugned judgement while exercising its powers u/s 482 CrPC in the petition filed by the accused seeking for quashing of summoning order, framing charges order and charge sheet, the High Court had issued direction to proceed against the appellant who was the School's Principal at the relevant time.

Although it had dismissed the petition the High Court had made certain disparaging observations against the third person in the impugned judgement.

The issue that arose for consideration before the Top Court was whether the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC could issue directions to proceed against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order and also make observations.

"In our opinion, the answer is an emphatic NO. The High Court should not have ventured into an area which would adversely affect a third party to the proceedings and more so without referring to any credible material warranting such intervention of the High Court," the bench observed in its order.

While allowing the appeal in Anu Kumar V. State (UT Administration) & Anr, the bench said,

"It is a different matter if the High Court was to merely observe that if the Trial Court after recording of the evidence finds that some more persons were involved in the commission of the subject crime, must proceed against them by invoking Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Suffice it is to observe that impugned judgment issuing direction to proceed against the appellant in connection with stated crime and recording disparaging observations against him cannot be countenanced. The same stands effaced from the record."

Case Before Punjab & Haryana High Court

As per the complainant's case in the FIR registered u/s 354, 354A IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the bus conductor Jagjit Singh did wrong acts with complainant's daughter aged 5 years who studied in KG class with his hands. It was also stated that the complainant had to approach the police authorities for registration of a criminal case since the school's Principal failed to take any action when the matter was reported to him. The trial court on September 28, 2016 had found the accused guilty for the commission of offences u/s 354, 354A of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act.

During the course of events, the Trial Court registered another FIR against the School Administrator (Sanjeev Kumar) and against the owner of the bus based on the recommendations of Chandigarh Commission for Protection of Child Rights (UT).

Sanjeev Kumar had thus approached the High Court by filing a petition u/s 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summoning order, framing charges order and charge sheet.

While dismissing the petition the bench of Justice Fateh Deep Singh had exercised power u/s 482 CrPC and had directed the Trial Court to take appropriate action and proceed against the Principal who had knowledge of the incident.

"To meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it essential to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and direct the Court below, where the matter is 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 law," the High Court had observed in this regards.

The High Court had also said that, "​​From what has come on the records, the petitioner cannot hide behind the façade of lack of knowledge or information and rather was duty bound being an Administrator of the school relating to which and where the occurrence has taken place and which is well substantiated from the proceedings of the Court whose orders have been put to challenge in this petition. The fact that the Commission has done its duty and the judicial Court, on the basis of evidence before it, has passed summoning order and framed charges and put the guilty to trial, cannot in any manner be termed to be unfounded, illegal or perverse necessitating exercise of inherent powers by this Court."

Case Title: Anu Kumar V. State (UT Administration) & Anr| SLP(Crl.)No. 4567 of 2019

Coram: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar

Citation : LL 2021 SC 757

Click Here To Read/Download Order