Smt. Santosh Poonia vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C., the applicant who was, at the time of occurrence, Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mathura and has since been transferred to Bombay, seeks to quash the charge-sheet filed against her by police station Sadar Bazar, Mathura.

The facts which gave rise to submission of charge-sheet by the police are that on 19.4.2003 the complainant, who is a disabled lady teacher in the institution, was called by the applicant Principal to her office where she was assaulted and thrashed by the applicant resulting in injuries to her person. She got her injuries examined at District Hospital the same evening and the report of the examining doctor about the injuries is as follows:

Injuries:

C/o pain in both sides of the neck and difficulty in taking food and liquid. No external mark of injury seen.

Abraded contusion 0.3 x 0.2 c.m. on the back of Lt. fore arm distal part C/o pain and tenderness.

C/o pain in the Lt. hip joint. No external mark of injury seen.

C/o pain in the Rt. side foot. No external mark of injury seen.

Contusion 0.3 x 0.2 c.m. on the distal 1/3rd part of the Rt. fore arm C/o pain.

Opinion: Injury Nos. 2 and 5 are caused by hard and blunt object and friction fresh in nature, about 6 to 8 hrs. old. No opinion can be given regarding rest of the injuries.

R.T.I. of Smt. Indira Sharma.

Thereafter an F.I.R. was registered at police station Sadar Bazar, Mathura at 11.30 in the night which is on record. Investigation followed and the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and there are witnesses who said in their statements before the Investigating Officer that they heard cries and shrieks from inside the room at the time of occurrence. The peon through whom the complainant was called to the Principal''s room also testified to the fact of her being called through him though he subsequently gave an affidavit denying the same.

The existence of ill-will between the applicant and the complainant is apparent because the Principal was dissatisfied with the work of the complainant, and had issued many memos about the fact of her being non-punctual, writing private letters in her class room, and not exercising effective control over the students in the class. She is also reported to have given evidence against the Principal in a case against the Principal applicant cutting green trees under the Green Trees Protection Act.

It will be seen that the matter has not yet been examined at the trial court''s level. No application u/s 227, Code of Criminal Procedure was given by the applicant before the trial court and the trial court has not examined the matter in order to decide whether proceedings will continue against the accused or not? The applicant has come running straight to the High Court by-passing the trial court altogether which is a wholly unwholesome practice and needs to be discouraged. That alone provides justifiable ground for rejection of the application.

There is on record the Education Officer''s report which does not support the happening of the incident which is an important feature to indicate the baseless character of the incident. All these features need to be examined by the trial court first and it is for him to decide whether a prima facie case is made out and whether the case is fit to be proceeded with.

Before parting with the case we feel inclined to make certain observations, particularly ; in view of the fact that it was argued by the counsel for the applicant that if matters relating to inter se dispute between a teacher and a Principal in an educational institution are allowed to travel to a court of law, the discipline of the institution will be severely undermined and subordinates will start threatening their superiors with criminal action and the administration of the institution will stand eroded. The counsel further emphasized the fact that if this tendency grows and those resorting thereto succeed in their designs, it would be extremely harmful to the functioning of the various institutions in the country.

We fully endorse the fears and apprehensions of the learned Counsel but we cannot demand clairvoyance from Judicial Officers. The only thing which a Judicial Officer can do and should do in these matters is to examine the whole episode in proper perspective keeping in mind the possibility of the apprehensions propounded by the learned Counsel for the applicant as above and give the matter a searching probe in order to find out whether the complaint is a cover for a retaliatory action or there is real and genuine substance in the same. Cases where superior officers and subordinate employees are involved should, therefore, be closely examined at the initial level and the entire conspectus of circumstances should be visualized and the mere formality of witnesses being available should not always be considered sufficient if the circumstances indicate otherwise. Such matters should not be examined in the same manner as other ordinary criminal cases and should be given a deeper probe.

Petition dismissed.