Delhi District Court
Ms. Nilima Rishbud vs State on 12 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) ACT
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 344 of 2018
1. Ms. Nilima Rishbud,
w/o Sh. Vijay Rishbud,
R/o Flat No. K004, Exotica Fresco,
Sector137, Noida - 201301 (UP)
2. Shri Sandeep Sancheti,
S/o Shri K. K. Sancheti,
R/o SRM IST Nagar, Kattankulathur,
Kancheepuram District, Tamil Naidu
3 Shri N. K. Sharma,
S/o Late Shri D. C. Sharma,
R/o 925, Swami Vivekanand Block,
Housing Board Colony Saraswati Vihar,
Gurgaon Haryana, 122001 .........Revisionists
Vs.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ..........Respondent
Instituted on : 14.05.2018 Argued on : 03.07.2018 Decided on : 12.07.2018 O R D E R 1 The revisionists have assailed the order dated 14.03.2018 vide which it is held that case u/s 176/202 IPC is made out against them. No separate notice of accusation was framed. The copy of the order was given to them as a notice of Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 1/8 accusation itself.
2 The revision has been filed on the grounds that no case u/s 176/202 IPC is made out against them. FIR No. 328/2012 u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC PS, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was lodged against the students at the instance of SPA. There is no omission on their part to inform the police though there was delay on their part to forward the complaint which does not come within the ambit of Section 176/202 IPC. The proceedings u/s 176/202 IPC can continue only if accused are convicted of any substantive offence. The students have compounded the offence as a result they are acquitted so the proceedings u/s 176/202 IPC against them are not maintainable in the eyes of law. The sections 176 & 202 IPC are not covered under the explanation to Section 177 IPC which is also applicable to Section 176 IPC. Hence, this revision.
3 Notice of the revision is given to the respondent.
4 The facts of the case are like this. On 02.09.2012 at 12 noon at Boys Hostel, Taimur Nagar, School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), Maharani Bagh, New Delhi victim Naveen Khujur was asked to perform many inhuman acts and strenuous activities including situps with weight of bricks etc. The said act has caused severe internal injuries to the victim who under went medical treatment. The victim was unable to walk properly. The ragging on the victim was done by the students of SPA. There was lack of information and poor implementation of the Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 2/8 preventive measures on the part of SPA. Due to genuine fears, the victim did not report the matter to the college authorities. On 03.09.2012, the victim has telephonically informed his father about the incident of ragging and pain who asked him to come to Jharkhand for medical treatment. On 03.09.2012, the victim went to Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi where some medicines were prescribed. His condition did not improve. On 11.09.2012, the victim went to his native place at Jharkhand and thereafter narrated the incident to his father. On 12.09.2012, the incident of ragging in writing was brought to the notice of Dean, SPA. A letter dated 14.09.2012 was circulated vide which receipt of complaint dated 12.09.2012 was acknowledged. A legal notice dated 07.11.2012 was served upon SPA and thereafter complaint was forwarded to the police to lodge the FIR. SPA has not followed the UGC Regulations on curbing the menace of ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. FIR was registered against the revisionists. The charge sheet u/s 338/176/34 IPC was filed against the revisionists and others. 5 Ld. Trial Court after hearing the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel has held that a case u/s 176/202 IPC is made out against the revisionists.
6 Ld. Counsel for the revisionists submitted that main accused have compounded the offence who have been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. He further submitted that there is only delay on their part to forward Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 3/8 the complaint to the police which alone does not mean that there was violation of any regulation on their part. He further submitted that revisionists cannot be tried for offences u/s 176/202 IPC once the other accused have been acquitted of the main offence. He has placed reliance on Harish Chandra Sing, Sajjan Sing Rathod & Anrs. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1979) 4 SCC 502.
7 Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that authorities of SPA were under a legal obligation to forward the complaint forthwith to the police for further action. She further submitted that there is no explanation on the part of revisionists why the complaint of the father of victim was kept pending for three months. She further submitted that revisionists cannot take advantage of the fact that students, who have done ragging, have been acquitted by the court concerned as there was no legal duty on the part of students to report the matter to the police qua ragging. 8 Heard and perused the record.
9 University Grants Commission has made regulations to curb the menace of ragging in the Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. Regulation 7 shows that action has to be taken by the Head of Institution on the receipt of recommendation of the ante ragging squad or receipt of information concerning any reported incident of ragging. The Head of Institution shall immediately determine if a case under penal laws is made out and if so, either on his own or through a member of Anti Ragging Committee authorized by him in this behalf, Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 4/8 proceed to file FIR within 24 hours of the receipt of the information or recommendation with the police and local authorities under the appropriate penal provisions relating to one or more of the following : namely:
i) Abetment to ragging;
ii) Criminal conspiracy to reg; iii) Unlawful assembly and rioting while ragging; iv) Public nuisance created during ragging; v) Violation of decency and moralsthrough ragging; vi) Injury to body, causing hurt or grievous hurt; vii) Wrongful restraint; viii) Wrongful confinement; ix) Use of criminal force;l x) Assaults well as sexual offences or unnatural offences; xi) Extortion; xii) Criminal trespass; xiii) Offences against property; xiv) Criminal intimidation; xv) Attempts to commit any or all of the above mentioned offences against the victim(s); Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 5/8
xvi) Threat to commit any or all of the above mentioned offences against the victim(s);
xvii) Physical or psychological humiliation;
xviii) All other offences following from the definition of "Ragging" 10 It is clear from the Regulation 7 that there should be a Anti Ragging Squad to prevent the incident of ragging. There should be Anti Ragging Committee in the Institution. The incident of ragging brought to the notice of Head of Institution must be reported to the police by him or through member of Anti Ragging Committee within 24 hours to lodge FIR.
11 In the instant case, revisionist no. 1 is the Dean, revisionist No. 2 is the Registrar and Revisionist No. 3 is the Director of SPA. They are running SPA. Victim was student of SPA. On 02.09.2012, his seniors have done ragging with him. The victim was allegedly forced to do many inhuman acts and strenuous activities including situps and weight of bricks which have cost severe injuries to him. There was allegedly lack of proper information and poor implementation of the preventive measures due to which victim could not report the matter forthwith to the authorities of SPA. On 03.09.2012 the victim has informed his father. The victim has thereafter went to his house at Jharkhand. On 12.09.2012 a written complaint was given by the father of the victim to SPA, the receipt of which is duly acknowledge vide letter dated 14.09.2012. No action was taken by the Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 6/8 revisionist. A legal notice dated 07.11.2012 was served upon SPA and thereafter complaint was forwarded by the authorities to the police for registration of FIR. 12 The revisionists have come to know about the incident of ragging on the victim on the receipt of complaint dated 12.09.2012 but no action was taken by them. They were supposed to report the matter to the police forthwith but they did not adopt this procedure for the reasons best known to them. 13 Section 176 IPC says that whoever legally bound to give any notice or to furnish any information on any subject to any public servant and as such intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender. 14 Section 202 IPC says that (I) accused has knowledge or reasons to believe that some offence has been committed; (ii) that the accused has intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence; (iii) that the accused was legally bound to give that information.
15 The case law referred to by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 7/8 16 Section 202 IPC cast a duty upon a person other than the offender to give information to the police. The ragging was done by the senior students who were not under an obligation to report the matter either to the authorities or to the police. The students have compounded the offence with the victim. The revisionist cannot draw any support from their acquittal on account of compounding of the offence. The matter was brought to the notice of the revisionists by the father of the victim. The revisionists were under a legal obligation to report the matter to the police within 24 hours. They kept sitting over the complaint till they received a legal notice from the father of victim. The matter was reported to the police only after the receipt of legal notice. The revisionists were under a legal obligation to furnish the information to the police about the incident of ragging which they have failed to perform.
17 I do not find any infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
18 The revision filed by the revisionists is dismissed. 19 TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back.
20 Revision file be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on 12 July, 2018 th (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA) Add. Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East, New Delhi Nilima Rishbud & Ors. Vs. State - CR No. 344 of 2018 8/8