People named in an FIR related to security proceedings under Section 107 of the CrPC cannot be considered as accused, according to the Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court upheld the appointment of a candidate for the position of Police Constable Grade II and emphasized that individuals named in the FIR for proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C should not be considered as accused. The court referenced its previous ruling in R. Ajithkumar Vs The Chairman, TNUSRB & Another [W.P(MD)No.19985 of 2017], stating that security proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C are not criminal cases. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima, pointed out, “The authorities overlooked that the bond was obtained from the petitioner when he was a minor. This should not have been used against him, and records should not have been kept to harm the juvenile.”
Advocate C. Jeganathan represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan represented the respondent. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board in Chennai announced a call for applications to fill the positions of Police Constable Grade II, Jail Warden, and Fireman Grade II for 2019. The petitioner applied, passed the written exam, and the Physical Efficiency Test. The cutoff for the backward class community, to which the petitioner belonged, was set at 69. The petitioner scored 71 and was included in the provisional selection list, but the Superintendent of Police refused to appoint him as Police Constable Grade II, citing Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules. The reason given was that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner at C4 Thilagar Thidal (Crime) Police Station, Madurai City, under Section 109 of Cr.P.C, and he was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding this matter. However, the petitioner did not mention his involvement in this case on his application form.
The petitioner was disqualified from being selected as Police Constable Grade II due to his involvement in a criminal case and the failure to disclose this information. The Single-Judge Bench rejected the petition because the petitioner intentionally hid his participation in proceedings under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C and had signed a bond for good behavior. The petitioner then filed an Intra-Court appeal against this dismissal. The Bench noted that he was only about 16 years old when involved in these proceedings. It stated that even if a juvenile is part of a criminal case, it should not affect them later. According to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a child who has faced legal action under this Act should not face disqualification related to a conviction.
The High Court also referenced its earlier ruling in R. Ajithkumar, which clarified that security proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C are not considered criminal cases. Even if an FIR is filed for these proceedings, those named in it are not seen as accused. The court concluded that if an applicant fails to mention such proceedings, it should not be held against them, and the relevant rules should not apply. This reasoning was deemed applicable in the current case as well. Consequently, the Bench overturned the previous order and instructed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable Grade II and arrange for his training as soon as possible.
The court agreed to the appeal and stated, “The appellant’s seniority will be considered equal to those chosen through the 2019 common recruitment notice. He will receive financial benefits starting from the date he was actually appointed.”
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
