- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kurukshetra University And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The Warden of Kurukshetra University lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Respondent 2, Vinay Kumar, had unlawfully entered a university hostel on the night of 25–26 September 1975. Acting on this FIR, the police registered a case under Sections 448 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Before any investigation began, Respondent 2 petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the FIR. The High Court, without issuing notice to Kurukshetra University, quashed the FIR on 22 December 1975 and awarded costs of Rs 300 against the State of Haryana. The University’s application for review was dismissed, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, quash an FIR before the police had commenced any investigation and when no judicial proceeding was pending.
- Whether the High Court’s sua sponte observations undermining the University’s authority to enforce discipline were appropriate in the absence of notice to the University.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud emphasized that:
- The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not arbitrary; it must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of cases.
- At the time of the High Court’s order, the police had not begun investigation and no judicial proceeding was pending. Therefore, quashing the FIR was beyond the permissible scope of Section 482.
- The High Court’s unsolicited remarks suggesting that outsiders could freely violate University rules were improper, particularly because the University had not been heard.
The Court further clarified that although the University, through counsel, agreed not to pursue the complaint against Respondent 2, the police remain duty-bound to investigate any future complaints lodged by the University that disclose cognizable offences.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment and costs order set aside.
Direct Effect: The FIR stands restored, but the University’s counsel voluntarily undertook not to pursue the complaint, obviating further police investigation in this specific matter.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the limited scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and affirms that police must investigate cognizable offences reported by educational institutions, regardless of whether alleged offenders are outsiders.
Y.V Chandrachud, J.— The Kurukshetra University, which is one of the appellants before us, filed a first information report through its Warden in regard to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on the night between 25th and 26th of September, 1975 in one of the University hostels. Acting on that report, the police registered a case under Sections 448 and 452 of the Penal Code, against Respondent 2, Vinay Kumar. But before any investigation could be done by the police, Respondent 2 filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying that the first information report be quashed. The High Court, without issuing notice to the University, quashed the first information report by its judgment dated December 22, 1975 and directed Respondent 1, the State of Haryana to pay a sum of Rs 300 by way of costs to Respondent 2. The University asked for a review of the order since it had no notice of the proceedings, but that application was dismissed by the High Court, giving rise to this appeal.
2. It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.
3. While quashing the FIR, the High Court went out of its way and made observations concerning the University's power to enforce discipline in its campus. The High Court seems to feel that outsiders can with impunity flout the University rule that no outsider shall stay in a University hostel. Such a view is plainly calculated to subvert discipline in a sphere where it is most needed. We are clear that the High Court ought not to have made these observations without, at least, giving a hearing to the University.
4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court including the order asking the State of Haryana to pay the costs amounting to Rs 300 to the respondent.
5. Mr Mukherjee, who appears on behalf of the University, happily assures us that the University will not pursue the complaint against Respondent 2. No further steps need, therefore, be taken by the police to investigate into the complaint. It must, however, be clearly understood that the police are under an obligation to investigate into complaints filed by the University, whenever law casts upon them that obligation. The special leave petition filed before us states in para 18 that after the judgment of the High Court it has become impossible for the University to maintain law and order in its campus as the police have been obdurately refusing to accept any complaint lodged by the University against ex-students and outsiders who enter the campus at any time of the day and night, and stay in the hostels without the necessary permission. It is the bounden duty of the police to record the complaints lodged by the University and to inquire into them in accordance with law. If any cognizable offence is disclosed, the police cannot refuse to act on the complaint lodged by the University for the reason merely that the orders issued by the University are not binding on outsiders.
Alert