KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kurukshetrs University which is one of the appellants before us, filed a first information report through its Warder in regard to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on the night between 25th and 26th of Sep., 1975 in one of the University hostels. Acting on that report, the police registered a case under Ss. 448 and 452, 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 F.I.R. It ought to be realized 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 F.I.R. 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.