The Madras High Court has directed an investigation into the complaints made by a Senior Warden alleging violence suffered by him due to some disciplinary action taken against ragging. Terming the order of the Magistrate rejecting the demand for further investigation as cryptic, the Bench set aside the same.
The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court and direct further investigation. The de facto complainant raised the concern that a criminal investigation, born out of a serious incident inside a medical college hostel campus, was brought to a premature burial under the caption “undetected”, without exhausting the avenues of investigation which the facts of the case reasonably demanded.
The Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri held, “The impugned order does not indicate that the learned Magistrate independently considered the specific objections raised by the petitioner. The order also does not reflect any discussion as to why further investigation was unnecessary despite the serious factual background of the case. The order of the learned Magistrate is therefore cryptic and does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned judicial order.”
“When a Senior Warden entrusted with the duty of curbing ragging complains that an act of violence followed disciplinary action taken against ragging, the criminal justice system cannot afford to respond with a shrug of helplessness unless every reasonable investigative door has been opened and examined”, it added.
Advocate R. Karunanidhi represented the Petitioner while Counsel for State (Crl. side) D.Rajaboopathy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner was working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Nephrology, Tirunelveli Medical College, and was also functioning as the Senior Warden of the men’s hostel. According to the petitioner, he was entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring ragging activities among the students. On April 22, 2024, he received information from the father of one Kishore, a first-year student, and from the mother of another first-year student that their sons had been subjected to ragging by senior students in the men’s hostel. After enquiry, the petitioner got to know that two final-year MBBS students had allegedly ragged the first-year students. Thereafter, disciplinary action was taken by the college management. One Anwar was initially suspended for a period of three months and thereafter permanently debarred from the hostel.
The petitioner alleged that one day, when he had gone to drop his friend at the hostel, some unknown persons allegedly pelted a paver block from the terrace of the hostel building, which fell on the windshield of his car. The petitioner claimed that the said act was not a mere act of mischief but was committed with an intention to cause his death or at least with the knowledge that such an act was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. A case was registered by the respondent police for the offences under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The investigation ultimately culminated in a closure report as “undetected”. The petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate Court seeking further investigation, but his petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the Revision.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, clarified that when a final report is filed by the police stating that the case is “undetected” or a “mistake of fact”, the Magistrate is not expected to act as a mere post office. Upon receipt of such report, the Magistrate can accept the closure report, after due notice to the de facto complainant or reject the closure report and take cognisance if the materials disclose commission of an offence. The Bench explained that the Magistrate can also treat the protest petition as a complaint or order further investigation. “The power to direct further investigation is not an ornamental power. It is intended to ensure that the truth is not sacrificed at the altar of an incomplete investigation”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the investigating agency ought to have examined whether the facts disclosed only an offence against property or whether the manner of occurrence also disclosed offences involving danger to human life, criminal intimidation, common intention, attempt or other allied offences. “The final report as “undetected” cannot be sustained merely by stating that the accused could not be identified, unless the record shows that all reasonable efforts to identify the accused were undertaken”, it stated.
As per the Bench, the alleged incident had a clear institutional background given the petitioner had acted in his official capacity as Senior Warden against ragging and the alleged attack occurred shortly thereafter. Holding that background of ragging, the disciplinary action taken by the college administration, the petitioner’s role as Senior Warden, the alleged throwing of a paver block from a hostel terrace at midnight and the possible motive angle were circumstances which warranted further investigation, the Bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
“The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, shall nominate a competent police officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police / Assistant Commissioner of Police, other than the officer who earlier conducted the investigation, to conduct further investigation in Crime No.67 of 2024”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Kannan Baba v. The State of Tamil nadu (Case No.: Crl.RC.(MD) No.577 of 2026)
Comments
Post a Comment