Read Time: 07 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Khanwilkar and Ravi Kumar has held that the High Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to issue directions and observations against a person who is not before the Court or who hasn't been given any opportunity to present his/her case.

The bench also had added that the same can not be done too, in the absence of any specific material which indicates complicity in a crime. The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Principal of a primary school. 

In this case, a student of the school was sexually abused by a conductor of the bus in which she used to commute. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Chandigarh had found the accused guilty for commission of various offences and had sentenced him accordingly.

However, during the course of the proceedings, it came on record that the Chandigarh Commission for Protection of Child Rights (UT) had sent its recommendations to the Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, directing registration of another FIR against the School Administrator and owner of the bus.

Thereafter, the school administrator and the owner of the bus approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to quash the complaint against them, the summoning order, order framing charges, and the charge sheet under Section 482 of CrPc. It is to be noted that the Principal of the school was not a party in any of the proceedings.

The High Court, however, dismissed their petition.

It noted that “In this case, 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 and thus, for trying to extinguish the embers of this occurrence by suppressing the same with a mala fide intention, which is well illustrative from the testimony of the father of the girl.”

The High Court had further held that, "We 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 Supreme Court on hearing the submissions of the parties, however, allowed the appeal. The Top Court observed that the core issue before the bench to determine was whether the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 482, CrPC for quashing had proceeded to issue directions and observations to a party who was not before the Court, and whether the party was also not given any opportunity to be heard.

The Court held that there was no evidence before the High Court to pass such directions against the Principal of the School and held that the High Court should not have ventured into an area which did not warrant any intervention.

Lastly, the Court concluded that the impugned order issuing direction to proceed against the Principal in connection with the crime could not be sustained.

Cause Title: Anu Kumar Vs. State (UT Administration), Chandigarh