1. Petition for quashing prosecution proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC — High Court dismissal — Suggestion by High Court to suspend public servant petitioner. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1529
Supreme Court Of India
GAUTAM SINHA
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
Decided on : December 15, 1999
Important Points
A court should not direct or suggest the suspension of a public servant while dismissing a petition for quashing prosecution proceedings, as such directions interfere with the employer's administrative function in deciding the desirability of suspension.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings- Petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, dismissed by High Court- High Court also directed the State to place petitioner under suspension on the ground that a criminal case was filed against him- Not proper- It amounts to practically taking over the function of the employer in deciding as to the desirability of keeping a public servant under suspension or not- No such direction could be passed-That portion of the order expunged .. [Paras 2 and 3]
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Hardship in attending trial court proceedings — Request for exemption from personal appearance. (Para 3 )
3. High Court cannot direct an employer to consider suspending a public servant during quashment proceedings, as it usurps the employer's administrative function. (Para 2 )
4. Courts should refrain from passing directions detrimental to an accused in quashment proceedings that usurp the administrative functions of an employer regarding suspension. (Para 2 )
5. Direction regarding suspension expunged — Exemption from personal appearance granted to certain petitioners subject to conditions — SLPs disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
6. Can a court direct an employer to suspend a public servant during a quashment petition?
No. Such a direction amounts to taking over the employer's function in deciding the desirability of suspension. A court should refrain from passing directions detrimental to the accused while dismissing a petition for quashment. (Para 2 )
7. Under what conditions can a trial court exempt an accused from personal appearance?
Exemption may be granted provided that a counsel is present whenever the case is taken up, the accused does not dispute their identity, and they appear in court when their presence is imperatively needed. (Para 3 )
( 1 ) IT is not necessary to issue notice to the State of Bihar in this SLP. When the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings launched against them the High Court dismissed it by the impugned judgment. There is no reason for us to interfere with the said order of dismissal. However, in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court has practically directed the State government to place petitioner Gautam Sinha under suspension on the mere ground that a case has been filed against him by his erstwhile wife for offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. We are extracting the words which the learned Single Judge has stated in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. "i have been informed during the course of arguments that Gautam sinha, one of the accused-petitioners, is employed as Assistant Engineer, advance Planning, Public Works Department of the Government of bihar, Punaichak, Patna. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, opposite New Secretariat, Patna, to consider the desirability of placing gautam Sinha under suspension during pendency of the trial. "
( 2 ) WE have no doubt that learned Single Judge ought not to have made such a direction. It amounts to practically taking over the function of the employer in deciding as to the desirability of keeping a public servant under suspension or not. When the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings the High Court should have refrained from passing any direction detrimental to him, apart from dismissing the petition for quashment. We, therefore, expunge the said paragraph from the impugned judgment.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel highlighted the hardships of the petitioners in attending the criminal court at Pune. We permit the parents of the petitioners (Sarju Prasad Sinha and Laxmi Sinha) to apply before the trial court to exempt them from personal appearance. If any such application is made we direct the trial Judge to exempt them from appearance on the following conditions: 1. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever their case is taken up. 2. They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case. 3. They will be present in court when such presence is imperatively needed.
( 4 ) THE SLPs are disposed of.
