SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Yash Gupta

Vs.

President I.C.A.R.

S.L.P.(Civil.)No.18552 of 2013

(B.S.Chauhan and Sharad A. Bhobde, JJ.)

11.11.2013

ORDER

B.S.Chauhan, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner and  her  husband  Dr. Sarveshwar Dayal Gupta had faced criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No.  245/2 of 2005 registered at  P.S. Solan vide FIR No. 252/2003 and the  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan (H.P.) had acquitted  both  of  them  under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 of Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC').

2. Subsequently, certain departmental proceedings had been initiated against them wherein punishment  had  been  imposed  against which the petitioner has filed this petition after agitating up to  the High Court.

3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel on 3.7.2013, we were of the view that the judgment of the trial  court  could  not  be sustained in the eyes of law and the petitioner and  her  husband  Dr. Sarveshwar Dayal Gupta had been acquitted wrongly.   Thus, we passed

the following order:

"Issue notice to  the  petitioner  through  the  present Advocate as to why the trial court judgment in Criminal Case No. 245/2 of 2003 dated 22.6.2007 should not be set  aside  by  this Court suo-motu as we do not see any  reason to disbelieve  the statement given by Dr. R.N. Verma, ex-Director of  NRCM.   Reply to the show cause notice may be filed within three weeks. List the matter thereafter So far as this special leave petition is concerned, it is dismissed."

4. In view thereof, a reply has been filed by the petitioner submitting that in case the order of acquittal  passed  by the trial court is set aside at such  a  belated  stage,  the  petitioner  would suffer an irreparable loss and  injury  and  the  career  of  her  two children would be adversely affected. The petitioner would not be able to look after her ailing mother and she has  tendered  an  unqualified and unconditional apology in an unwarranted incident which  led  to  a criminal prosecution of the petitioner and  her  husband  as  well  as initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them. Further, in spite of the fact that both of them had been acquitted in a  criminal  case, they have been  awarded  severe  punishment  in  domestic  enquiry  of compulsory retirement even though both of them had a longer period  of service.

5. In  view  thereof  and  taking  into  consideration  that   the petitioner's husband who had actually committed an offence  punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC  is  not  a party before us, we are of the view that the proceedings be dropped.

In view of the above, the show cause notice issued on 3.7.2013 is discharged.