IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that remorse and willingness to reform can justify the quashing of FIRs in cases of ragging, emphasizing the need for strict measures against such social evils.

ORDER :

With consent heard finally.

The present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of the FIR vide Crime No. 250/2023 registered at Police Station University (JI), Gwalior for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings.

2. During the pendency of this petition, an application (vide I. A. No. 20623/2023) under section 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was preferred by the petitioner for grant of permission to enter into compromise and compound the offence between petitioner/accused and complainant/victim.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that prosecution case as has been recited in the FIR indicates that complainant was subjected to ragging by the petitioner namely Sachin Singh Bhadouriya and other accused persons namely Sumit Gurjar, Uday Bhadouriya and Veer Gurjar. Sumit Gurjar gave a Danda blow to the victim who sustained contusion over his right eye and others caused Marpeet. Therefore, offence primarily under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of section 34 was preferred. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated. No grievous hurt has been caused to the complainant and case is compoundable in nature.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of ASI/Steno, Head Constable/Ministerial in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and intends to apply for other employments, therefore, this case may haunt him in future.

5. While referring the application for compounding vide I. A. No. 20623/2023, petitioner submitted that petitioner and complainant intend to enter into a compromise to bury the hatchet, once and for all, if any exists.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1/State opposed the prayer. According to him, ragging is an Institutional and Social Menace, it needs to be curbed and persons responsible for it should be dealt with severely, so that others may learn the lesson. Because of ragging, many innocent students suffer and sometimes they leave the Educational Campus. Sometimes, even suicide is committed by some students.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that petitioner has regrets because he has been implicated with such allegations. Although, it was not the case as projected by the police, but he learnt the lesson hard way and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Petitioner is also ready to perform community service to purge his misdeeds, if any and to convey the message to his fellow beings, who are senior in different courses in Jiwaji University Gwalior that ragging is a Social Menace and seniors should not misuse their position to torture juniors and torment their career. Seniors are meant to mentor the juniors.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Harshit Sharma placed “UGC Regulations on curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions 2009”, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations against Ragging 2009, as well as Medical Council of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulations 2009, vide notification dated 3-8-2009. He also referred different judgments of Apex Court specially in the case of Vishwa Jagrati Mission through President vs. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2793 and University of Kerala vs. Councils, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 753.

9. He fairly submitted that a lesson should be received by the petitioner but his career may not be jeopardized because of such allegations. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat a