GAUTAM SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to issue notice to the State of Bihar in this SLP. When the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings launched against them the High Court dismissed it by the impugned judgment. There is no reason for us to interfere with the said order of dismissal. However, in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court has practically directed the State government to place petitioner Gautam Sinha under suspension on the mere ground that a case has been filed against him by his erstwhile wife for offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. We are extracting the words which the learned Single Judge has stated in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment.

(2.) We have no doubt that learned Single Judge ought not to have made such a direction. It amounts to practically taking over the function of the employer in deciding as to the desirability of keeping a public servant under suspension or not. When the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings the High Court should have refrained from passing any direction detrimental to him, apart from dismissing the petition for quashment. We, therefore, expunge the said paragraph from the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel highlighted the hardships of the petitioners in attending the criminal court at Pune. We permit the parents of the petitioners (Sarju Prasad Sinha and Laxmi Sinha) to apply before the trial court to exempt them from personal appearance. If any such application is made we direct the trial Judge to exempt them from appearance on the following conditions: 1. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever their case is taken up. 2. They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case. 3. They will be present in court when such presence is imperatively needed.