KRISHAN LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Raj Aneja respondent No. 2 joined as a school mistress in Musaddi Lal Arya Girls High School, Ambala Cantt in August, 1962. She discharged her duties with sincerity and became in charge of 9th Class. This school was a Government aided recognised school and was liable to matter payment to its staff as per the State Government scales and allowances. The Management of the school, however, asked the teachers to donate 5% of their salary per month to the school, and also raise donation every month from the students. Respon dent No. 2 did not agree to this illegal and arbitrary demand. So, on 30 -4 -1992 while she was attending the staff meeting she was humiliated by Krishan Lal petitioner and was asked to go out. Thereafter she was deprived of her work as in charge of the class and was reverted to a subject teacher. The petitioners in order to harm her reputation placed her under suspicion and asked her to attend the school regu larly without assigning her any job. As a result of these acts of the petitioners, she was insulted pub licly and her reputation was harmed and lowered in the eyes of the staff, students, their parents and public at large. On these averments Raj Aneja re spondent filed a complaint against the Manager and President of the Managing Committee of Arya Girls High School, Ambala, under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt found that a prima -facie case under Section 500, I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners and he summoned them to face trial for the offence vide order Annexure PA dated 4 -5 -1993. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure code for quashing the above referred order on the ground that action was taken against respondent No. 2 as she created indiscipline and misappropriated the funds of the school. The action was taken by the petitioners in their capacity as Manager and President of the managing commit tee and did not constitute any offence under Section 500, I.P.C. They were competent to exercise the control over the affairs of the school and its employ ees and were protected in view of the 7th, 8th and 9th exception of Section 499, I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.