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.

Ananya Dixit, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2023.