Persons Named In FIR Related To Security Proceedings U/S.107 CrPC Can’t Be Construed As Accused: Madras HC

The High Court relied upon its earlier judgment in R.Ajithkumar Vs The Chairman, TNUSRB & Another [W.P(MD)No.19985 of 2017] wherein it has been observed that security proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C cannot be construed as criminal cases.

The Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima asserted, “The authorities failed to note that bond was obtained from the petitioner when he was juvenile. It could not have been raked up against the petitioner. Even records should not have been maintained so as to cause prejudice to the juvenile.”

Advocate C.Jeganathan represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan represented the Respondent.

The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai issued a notification calling for applications to fill up the posts of Police Constable Grade II, Jail Warden and Fireman Grade II – 2019. The petitioner submitted his application in response and cleared the written examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test. The cut off marks for backward class community to which the petitioner belonged was fixed at 69.

The petitioner secured 71 marks and his name was found in the provisional selection list but the Superintendent of Police declined to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable Grade II by invoking Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules. The reason assigned was that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the file of C4 Thilagar Thidal (Crime) Police Station, Madurai City under Section 109 of Cr.P.C and the petitioner was also produced before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer in that regard. The petitioner however did not disclose his involvement in the said case while filling up the application form.

In view of his involvement in the said criminal case and on account of suppression of the same, the petitioner rendered himself disqualified for selection as Police Constable Grade II.The Single-Judge Bench dismissed the Petition on the ground that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that he was involved in proceedings under Section 109 of Cr.P.C and had executed bond for good behaviour. Challenging the dismissal of the writ petition, the Intra-Court appeal was filed.

The Bench noted that when he was involved in the proceedings under Section 109 of Cr.P.C, he was hardly 16 years old. “Even if a juvenile has been involved in a criminal case, it cannot be put against him subsequently. Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 states that a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act shall not suffer disqualification if any attached to a conviction of an offence”, the Bench emphasized.

The High Court also relied upon its judgment in R.Ajithkumar (Supra) wherein it has been held that security proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C cannot be construed as criminal cases and though FIR is registered for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, the persons named in the FIR cannot be construed as accused. “It was held therein that even if an applicant omits to mention the details of such proceedings, the same cannot be put against the applicant and that Rule 14(b)(ii) and (iv) of TNPSS Rules cannot be invoked in such cases. The said approach deserves to be applied in the present case also”, the Bench added.

Thus, setting aside the order impugned in the Writ Appeal, the Bench directed the respondents to appoint the appellant in the post of Police Constable Grade II and send him for training at the earliest opportunity.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench held, “The appellant's seniority will be reckoned on par with those selected through the 2019 common recruitment notification. He will be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of his actual appointment.”

Cause Title: S.Saravanan v. The Director General of Police [Case No. W.A(MD)No.831 of 2022]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate C.Jeganathan

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan

Click here to read/download order