Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In the Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal 1466/2023 @ SLP (Crl) 11377/2022
Before Justice K. Murari and Justice A. Amanullah
Decided on May 11, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Can a High Court go beyond the subject matter of a case while hearing a bail application in a child sexual abuse case?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67, 67A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376, 506)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)
• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Section 3, 4)
• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 3)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 214, 226, 227)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant, an inspector, registered an FIR against the accused. The Forensic Science Laboratory report directed him to conduct a DNA examination per the guidelines. However, the DNA examination was not performed.
• During the case proceedings, the court noticed that the police had not included an FSL report. Therefore, the court summoned the Superintendent of Police for an appearance.
• The Superintendent stated that he conveyed a request to the appellant. However, it was not carried out. In contrast, the appellant said he did not receive any such request.
• The court directed an inquiry against the appellant. This inquiry found him guilty and unfit for duty.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court’s direction to hold a departmental inquiry is not sustainable. The appeal in the impugned judgment was a bail application. A court cannot divert from the subject matter of the case.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that a Departmental Committee inquiry was conducted against the appellant. This inquiry found him negligent in performing his duties and suppressing material facts.

Opinion of the Bench

• The High Court bench should have confined itself to accepting or rejecting the bail application. The court could initiate separate proceedings against the appellant.
• Since the Superintendent was already initiating an inquiry, the High Court did not need to take any further action.
• The impugned High Court judgment should not influence the departmental inquiry.

Final Decision

• The bench rejected the findings of the High Court.