Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Chandrakanta Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6482 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
SMT.CHANDRAKANTA SINGH W/O VIMLESH KUMAR
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE HOLD LADY R/O 9/1, SHASTRI NAGAR,
ORDANCE FACTORY ESTATE, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K.MISHRA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF MP, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL SECY. DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVT.
OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL SECY. DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE COLLECTOR/DIST.MAGISTRATE BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BANSAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AT KOKTA ANAND
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PR IN CIPAL B AN S AL, BANSAL INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY AT KOKTA ANAND
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. K.C.BANSAL PRESIDENT BANSAL INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY R/O E-2/89, AURERA
COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 03-05-2024
19:11:33
2
8. RAJIV GANDHI PRODYOGIKI
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
AT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SHRI SUNIL BANSAL OCCUPATION: SECY.
BANSAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
C/O KOKTA ANAND NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA
PANCHAYAT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 AND SHRI H.K.UPADHYAY -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5, 6, 7, 9)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioner that her son namely Chandra Bhushan
Singh Chauhan in order to save his life, took shelter under a standing goods
train. However, as the goods train started, he lost his two hands and and one leg
and, therefore, by this petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-
i. a writ in nature of mandamus' may kindly be
issued commanding the Respondents to arrange
for transplantation of two artificial functional hands
and one artificial functional leg with full mechanism
for Chandra Bhushan Singh Chauhan alias 'Chintu'
i.e. son of the Petitioner who has lost two arms
and above the elbow and one leg above the knee in
the aforementioned sad episode of 'ragging' in its
worst form by senior students of Bangal Institute
for Science and Technology, Bhopal.
ii. a writ in nature of 'mandamus' may kindly be
issued commanding the respondents to pay jointly
or severally the compensation of atleast Rs. 25
Lakhs (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs) towards the
damages caused to the victimised student Chandra
Bhushan Singh Chauhan for loss of his limbs for
his medical treatment expenses and for ruining and
darkening of his entire future and for making his
life absolutely 'unmeaningful'; being morally
responsible, liable and accountable of not
checking and inhibiting ragging in its worst
inhuman form of physical and mental torture.
iii. a writ in the nature of 'mandamus may kindly be
issued commanding the respondent State
Government to provide employment to the
Petitioner, as per undertaking of the then Chief
Minister, treating it as a Special Case.
iv. a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' may kindly
and 8 to cancel the recognition and affiliation
respectively of the Respondent No. 5 i.e. the
Bansal Institute of Science & Technology, Bhopal;
as per recommendations of the District
administration of Bhopal vide its Enquiry Report
dated 2/7/2004 (Annex. P-52) for its total failure to
provide due protection to the new-comer students
from deadly practice of 'ragging', which was in
vogue even within the college campus and class
rooms and for their wilful conduct, negligence and
neglecting the measures for such inhibition; as well
as to register criminal offences against the
responsible office-bearers of the Institution and the
Principal of the College.
v. Any other appropriate writ or direction may also
kindly be issued if warranted in facts and and
circumstances of this case.
vi. Costs may also kindly be awarded.
2. During the course of arguments, this Court was of the view that since
the petitioner has not impleaded the boys, against whom her son alleged
ragging, therefore, they are the necessary parties and it was also not pointed
out by the counsel for the petitioner that an FIR was already lodged against
those boys.
3 . While this Court was in the process of directing the petitioner to
implead the boys, who were allegedly responsible for ragging, it was pointed
out by Shri H.K.Upadhyay that FIR was lodged against 17 boys and they were
tried for offence under sections 294, 323, 506, 147, 365 and 342 of IPC. The
petitioner's son himself entered into a compromise with the accused persons
and accordingly, an application under section 320 of CrPC was allowed and the
accused persons were acquitted for offence under sections 294, 323, 506 and
342 of IPC. The petitioner' son also turned hostile and expressed no
information about the incident and accordingly the accused persons were also
acquitted for offence under sections 147 and 365 of IPC,
4 . Shri Upadhyay has also provided a copy of the judgment dated
4.9.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in RT
No.2826/2003.
5. This petition was filed on 10.5.2006; whereas the petitioner's son had
already turned hostile and the accused persons were already acquitted by the
trial court by judgment dated 4.9.2004. Therefore, the petitioner's son was well
aware of the fact that he has already narrated before the trial court that he does
not know anything about the incident. The petition is completely silent with
regard to the judgment dated 4.9.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhopal in RT No.2826/2003.
6. Thus, it is clear that the allegation made by the petitioner in this petition
that her son was subjected to ragging, as a result he lost his two hands and one
leg, is a false statement before this Court because her son had already
expressed before the trial court that he does not know anything about the
incident. The petitioner's son had come in contact with a goods train in which
he lost his two hands and one leg. If it was a case of accident, then no body
can be held liable and if it was a case of ragging, then the petitioner's son should
have deposed before the trial court but he did not do so.
7. Had it been a case of filing an application under section 320 of CrPC
alone, then this Court could have understood that the meaning of compounding
is that although the offence might have committed, but the complainant does not
wish to prosecute the accused any further. But it is clear from the judgment that
the petitioner's son had turned hostile and expressed his ignorance about the
incident.
8. Once the petitioner's son had specifically given an evidence before the
trial court then it cannot be held that he has suffered an amputation of his both
hands and one leg on account of ragging by the students of respondent nos.5,
6, 7 and 9.
9 . Under these circumstances, no case is made out warranting
interference.
10. Since the petitioner has suppressed the material fact, therefore, the
Court was inclined to impose a heavy cost but as her son has already lost his
two hands and one leg, therefore, by adopting a sympathetic view cost is not
being imposed but a warning is being issued to the petitioner that she should be
honest and should disclose each and every fact and should not try to mislead
the court.
11. At this stage, it is submitted by Shri H.K.Upadhyay that although the
petitioner's son must have lost his two hands and one leg in a train accident but
being a responsible citizen of the country and since the petitioner's son was the
student of their institution, therefore, in case if he approaches the respondent
nos.5, 6, 7 and 9 for supply of artificial limbs, then in order to help out their ex-
student they would make every medical facility available to the petitioner's son
including the supply of artificial limbs but it is submitted that this gesture is not
under any legal or factual compulsion but it is merely a gesture of goodness
towards their ex-student.
12. The gesture expressed by the counsel for the respondent nos.4, 5, 6
and 7 is appreciated and it is held that this gesture shall not be treated as a
binding undertaking, which may make them liable for contempt of court and in
case if the petitioner's son approaches the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 9 then it
is expected that they will maintain their good gesture and would provide the
artificial limbs as would be suggested by the doctors.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
TG /-
