Allahabad High Court
Yogesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93206 Reserved Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3421 of 2025 Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Dwivedi,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The applicant has challenged the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6868 of 2022, titled State v. Tarun Sharma and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 323, 452, 457, 427, 504, 506 IPC, read with Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging in Educational Institutions Act, 2010, registered at P.S. Narsena, District Bulandshahar.
3. The prosecution's case is that complainant is the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya - a residential school. The school provides education from Class 6 to Class 12; both boys and girls. In this school, 12 students from Assam State were admitted into Class 9 comprising 08 boys and 04 girls. On 25.08.2017, two students from Assam, Mridu, Saptarshi, and Ashish, submitted a written complaint to the Principal stating that some senior students called them to Shivalik Sadan (Senior) and forced all three of them to pick a song on a mobile phone and dance to it. When they resisted, a Class 12-B student named Akash slapped Saptarshi and threatened him, saying that he would have to come again on Saturday for dance practice and perform a dance for them.
3.1 Upon receiving the complaint, the Principal immediately took cognizance of the matter and constituted an inquiry committee comprising Mr. Sunil Kumar Kohli (Physical Education Teacher), Mr. Gyanesh Kumar Sharma (PGT Mathematics), Mr. Arvind Singh (PGT English), Mrs. Pratibha (Physical Education Teacher), and Mr. Hiren Deka (TGT Assamese). The inquiry committee confirmed the incident to be true.
3.2 Besides Akash of Class 12-B, two other students were also found to be involved--Hakim Solanki of Class 12-A and Dipanshu Rawat of Class 12-B. A mobile phone was confiscated from Pankaj Kumar, son of Prem Kumar on 25.08.2017. It was admitted by the students that Pankaj Kumar's mobile was used during the incident to coerce the Assamese students into dancing.
3.3 The students Akash Kumar, Hakim Solanki, Dipanshu Rawat, and Pankaj Kumar were summoned to the office of Principal and warned not to repeat such behavior and further warned them of expulsion from the school and their guardians were also informed of the incident, accordingly.
3.4 These four students felt humiliated by the action taken and conspired to retaliate by insulting and assaulting the Assamese students. Accordingly, on 26.08.2017, at around 8:45 AM, the fifty unidentified students gathered with the intention of assaulting the Assamese students. When the Assamese students sensed danger, they managed to escape and hid in the room of the staff nurse, Mrs. T.L. Oinu, to save their lives.
3.5 After that, the above-mentioned students broke the lock of Principal's office, entered and vandalized furniture such as tables, chairs, sofas, computers, and the photocopy machine. Then, the students entered the gym and caused further destruction. The students also broke the lock of the M.I. (Medical Inspection) room and damaged items like cupboards, chairs, tables, etc. 3.6 Then, shouting slogans and making noise, they headed toward the residence of Principal, and sensing the danger, the Principal escaped from the school premises to save his life. However, later the students broke the lock of his residence and damaged items such as cupboards, tables, chairs, sofas, AC, fridge, dressing table, fans, beds, kitchen utensils, inverter battery, cooler, washbasin, lights, etc and the students also vandalized the vehicles parked on the school premises.
3.7 The students used sticks, hockey sticks, and iron rods to cause extensive damage to these vehicles. Two laptops and approximately Rs.45,000/- kept in Principal's residence were also found missing and next day the matter was reported to the police thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered against 27 students, and accordingly, the applicant was charge-sheeted along with other accused-students.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submitted that the applicant was a student of Class 12 at the time of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that, on 25.08.2017, the school authorities constituted an internal committee to inquire into the alleged incident of ragging. As per the findings of the inquiry report, the involvement of students Akash Kumar, Hakim Solanki, and Deepanshu Rawat was noted. Additionally, it was found that the mobile phone of one Pankaj Kumar was seized by the school authorities.
4.1 Learned counsel further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are no specific or direct allegations against him. It is further argued that the allegations made in the FIR are general in nature, without identifying any individual student as having caused damage to public property. The purported loss of two laptops and a sum of ₹45,000/- has not been attributed to any particular student, nor have these items been recovered from any of the students named.
4.2 It is also submitted that there is no mechanical inspection report on record to substantiate the claim that any vehicle parked on school premises was damaged. Moreover, no seizure of any damaged property has been made. In these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the allegations have been exaggerated by the school authorities.
4.3 It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR appear to be improbable and lacking in credibility, particularly in the context of a residential school environment where students and teachers generally share a cordial and closely supervised relationship. The fact that the matter was not reported to the police immediately, but rather the FIR was registered the following day after broader consultation, raises serious doubts about the spontaneity and veracity of the complaint. It is also noteworthy that the District Magistrate, who serves as the Chairman of the school's Management Committee, was not informed of the incident by the Principal at the relevant time. This omission suggests that the incident, if any, may not have been perceived as serious or credible when it allegedly occurred.
4.4 It is respectfully submitted that mobile phones are not permitted within the premises of the residential school, in accordance with institutional policy. At most, the incident in question may amount to an informal interaction or introductory exchange between senior students and the newly admitted students from Assam who had joined Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Buklana. The allegations, however, are vague and general in nature, without any specific act being attributed to the applicant.
4.5 It is further submitted that launching criminal prosecution on the basis of such non-specific and unsubstantiated allegations, particularly in a boarding school, may irreparably harm the educational and professional future of the students involved. No distinct or overt act has been alleged against the applicant, and he cannot be subjected to prosecution merely on the basis of collective or omnibus accusations lacking individual culpability.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that there are serious allegations against the students and supported the prosecution's case.
6. The Court is conscious of the settled legal principle that the initiation of criminal prosecution is a serious matter and must not be undertaken in a mechanical or routine manner. Upon careful perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, it is evident that the allegations made are general in nature and directed collectively against a group of students, without any specific or individual role being attributed neither to the applicant nor any of the student.
6.1 The name of the applicant does not figure in the internal inquiry report prepared by the school authorities, nor has the applicant been specifically named or identified by any of the witnesses. The prosecution's case, as it presently stands, rests largely on unsubstantiated assertions, and there appears to be an absence of concrete evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that would prima facie establish the applicant's involvement, much less sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt at the stage of trial.
6.2 The Court further notes that there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the prosecution regarding the delay in the registration of the FIR, particularly when the incident is alleged to be of a serious nature occurring within the premises of a fully residential school. Additionally, there is no clarity provided by the Principal or any member of the teaching staff regarding the circumstances under which the lock of the Principal's residence was allegedly broken. Notably, no student has been specifically identified in connection with this act.
6.3 It is also an undisputed fact that Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya is a residential institution where both students and faculty reside on campus and interact on a daily basis. Given that the students involved were of Class 12, it is difficult to accept that members of the teaching staff or other school employees would be unable to identify those allegedly involved in the incident. The absence of such identification casts further doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case.
7. The Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre & Ors1 has held that the Court must also consider whether permitting the prosecution to continue would serve the ends of justice or merely allow the legal process to be misused for an oblique purpose. Where the likelihood of conviction is remote and the continuation of proceedings would result in undue harassment, the Court is empowered to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings, even at a preliminary stage.
8. Upon a careful examination of the allegations levelled against the applicant, this Court finds that the complaint is devoid of specific, credible particulars and appears, on the face of it, to be inherently improbable. The narrative set out in the complaint does not inspire judicial confidence, particularly considering that the alleged incident is said to have occurred within the premises of a residential educational institution--a boarding marked by constant supervision and close interaction among students and faculty. In such a closely monitored environment, the plausibility of the events, as described, is highly doubtful.
9. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories wherein the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. Among those, it has been held that where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, or where the proceedings manifestly appear to be malicious or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the Court is justified in interceding to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
10. In the present case, the factual matrix falls squarely within these parameters. The complaint appears to be either the product of an exaggerated narrative or classic illustration of administrative failure on part of school authorities.
11. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present case warrants exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. The applicant and other charge-sheeted accused as well, being the students of Class 12 at the relevant time, possesses promising future prospects, and continuation of criminal prosecution on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, wherein the chances of conviction is at a bleak, would amount to abuse of the process of law.
12. This Court is conscious of the fact that all the accused students who have been charge-sheeted and thereafter summoned by the learned trial Court, are not before this Court, still deem it appropriate to invoke extraordinary power vest with this Court ,to quash and the set aside the entire proceedings.
13. Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6868 of 2022, titled State v. Tarun Sharma and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 323, 452, 457, 427, 504, 506 IPC, read with Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging in Educational Institutions Act, 2010, registered at P.S. Narsena, District Bulandshahar qua all the accused's charge -sheeted and thereafter summoned in the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed. It would not only secure the the ends of justice but also prevent the abuse of the process of Court.
14. This case shall not be treated as a precedent for any other matter, in view of its unique and context-specific circumstances.
15. Parting with the facts of the case, this Court observes that it reflects a significant lapse in administrative oversight, highlighting a concerning communication gap between the school's administration and its students. This Court notes with concern that the Principal did not adequately discharge his official responsibilities or moral duties. As the head of the institution, he bears a fiduciary duty to the parents who have entrusted their children for better education and care to the school. His failure to provide effective guardianship and uphold institutional accountability indicates a lapse in both stewardship and ethical responsibility. In such situations, it is imperative that the head of the institution should act with a sense of institutional commitment--both to uphold the integrity of the school and to safeguard the welfare and future of its students.
16. The instant application is allowed.
Order Date:- 30.5.2025 A. Tripathi (Vinod Diwakar, J.)