Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 8, 2022 at 20:20 IST
The Bombay High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a school principal (appellant) accused of hurling casteist abuses at a Scheduled Caste teacher.
Justice Milind Jadhav, also admonished the complaining teacher for hanging a banner demanding the principal’s arrest. The Court stated that the complainant should not have used extra-judicial remedies after following the proper criminal procedure of filing a complaint with the police.
This Court stated,“This approach of the informant in publishing a banner certainly would emanate from the thought for seeking vengeance against the appellant (school principal). Once the complaint is lodged, FIR registered, the publication of the banner is uncalled for. Complainant cannot seek extra judicial remedies to pressurize the prosecution.“
The Court warned complainants against using such tactics to exert pressure on prosecuting agencies.
The court was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail from the principal in a FIR filed for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the FIR, the appellant called the complainant to her cabin and humiliated her. The appellant allegedly told the complainant teacher that because she is from a lower caste, she should teach lower grades (classes 5 and 6) rather than Class 10.
In her defence, the appellant stated that the complainant was one of several teachers who had made mistakes when evaluating Class 10 results and teaching English. As a result, it was decided that she would no longer teach Class 10 and would instead teach Classes 5 and 6.
Despite the fact that the incident occurred in October 2021, the complainant did not file a FIR until February 2022, after the management asked her to teach lower classes.
“If the complainant was genuinely hurt by the incident, she would have immediately lodged the complaint as any prudent person is expected to do, if she was right in her complaint………the report filed by the complainant may be an outcome of vengeance and vendetta against the appellant and the management of the school.” the Court observed.
The Judge also noted the appellant’s claim that the complainant was not present in the school when the alleged incident occurred.
As a result, the Court granted the school principal anticipatory bail.