LexS.C. NARANG versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2553 : 2025 INSC 688 S.C. Narang v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2025) 22 April 2025 [Abhay S.Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Chairman of Managing Committee which runs the school can be punished for offence of cruelty to the child u/s.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.75 – Person who can be punished for cruelty to a child – Four year old sexually assaulted by a classmate in the school – Charge sheet filed against four persons, including appellant-Chairman of Managing Committee – Special judge issued summons to appellant, attributing negligence to the appellant for not implementing Guidelines issued by Directorate of Education for installation of CCTV cameras in school premises – Revision application by the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: On a plain reading of the first part of s.75, a person who can be punished for cruelty to a child must be shown to have either the actual charge of the child or control over the child – Reference to the child in s.75 is to the victim of the offence – It is impossible to even allege that the appellant, being Chairman of the Managing Committee had the actual charge of all the children studying in the school run by the institution – It cannot be said that he had control over all the children in the School – He may have control over the management of the institution which runs the School – That does not give him control over every child studying in the school – While considering the applicability of s.75, concern is not with the moral responsibility of the school’s management – Assuming that the appellant was morally responsible, s.75 cannot be applied unless it is shown that the appellant had the actual charge of the victim child or control over the victim child – Impugned orders set aside. [Paras 8, 9] * Author 2554 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Sexual assault; Assault by classmate; Guidelines issued by Directorate of Education; Installation of CCTV cameras at school premises; Chairman of the Managing Committee; Control over every child; Cruelty to child; Person who can be punished for cruelty to a child; Four year old sexually assaulted by a classmate in school; Actual charge of the child; Management of the institution; Moral responsibility of the school’s management. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2022 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLREVP No. 25 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., S. Rajappa, R. Gowrishankar, Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Toshiv Goyal, Ritwik Mohapatra, Varun Tyagi. Advs. for the Respondents: Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Ms. Satvika Thakur, Anshul Narayan, Prem Prakash. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a very unfortunate incident. A four year old child was studying in the nursery class at Maxfort School, Dwarka, New Delhi. The alleged incident occurred on 17th November 2017. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2555 S.C. Narang v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. The girl child complained of pain in her private parts, and upon enquiry from the child, it was learnt that one of her classmates had allegedly sexually assaulted her. Therefore, a First Information Report was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. Two protest petitions were filed by the complainant (second respondent, mother of the victim child). 3. We may note here that since the prime accused was less than 7 years of age, the police filed a charge-sheet only under Section 21 of the POCSO Act read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the JJ Act”). The charge sheet was filed against four persons: the Principal of the School, two teachers, an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.