JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. Pursuant to a newspaper report in Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated September 7, 2001, Divya Himachal, dated September 6, 2001 and Indian Express, the Registry was directed to place the matter on judicial side and accordingly, the news item was registered as Cr. W.P. No: 28 of 2001.
2. The news item depicted that a tender aged boy of 10 years, named Karnail Singh, who was studying in a Primary School at village Sakeri, about 26 kms. from Palampur was severely beaten by his school teacher Onkar Nath, respondent No. 10 herein, on August 21, 2001. According to the Press Reports, Onkar Nath kicked Karnail Singh, a student of standard IV, causing injury on the genital region. The injury continued aggravating till Septmber 1, 2001 when the student died. It is also observed in the report that some influential persons allegedly acted as “mediators” to facilitate a mutual agreement to compensate loss of life of the minor boy with his mother Bhato Devi and a settlement was said to have been arrived at by paying Rs. 60,000/- in presence of several persons. A part payment of Rs. 30,000/- was also made to Karam Chand, brother-in-law of Bhato Devi.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents, pursuant to which they appeared.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. On behalf of respondents 1 to 8, two affidavits have been filed. In the affidavit on behalf of police authorities, namely respondents 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8, it was stated that on coming to know regarding the news published in the newspaper. Inspector Shakti Chand, Station House Officer, Police Station, Palampur, along with police party and Naib Tehsildar, Palampur reached at the Government Primary School, Sakeri on September 11, 2001 and recorded the statement of aggrieved Bhato Devi. After the notice was issued, they took up the matter for further investigation. In paragraph 6 of the counter, it was stated that an FIR No. 241/01 was registered on September 11, 2001 for offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Palampur, against Onkar Nath and others. It was also stated that during the course of investigation an amount of Rs. 30,000/- had been recovered from Karam Chand, brother-in-law of Bhato Devi, who had kept the amount with his brother-in-law Prem Chand. The Investigating Officer had further taken into possession M.L.C. No. 26/2001 of deceased-Karnail Singh along with OPD Chit issued by Primary Health Centre, Gopalpur. It was stated that 22 persons were arrested out of which 19 were arrested for an offence punishable under Section 201, IPC and were released on bail, whereas the main accused-Onkar Nath (respondent No. 10 herein) was arrested for offences punishable under Sections 304/201, IPC and Karam Chand and Sansar Chand were arrested for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Code and they are under Judicial Lock-Up at Dharamsala.
6. Counter-affidavit is also filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9, reiterating what has been stated in the reply filed by the police authorities. One more fact is also mentioned in the said reply. It is that as per the information received from the District Primary Education Officer, Kangra, the teacher who is alleged to have beaten Karnail Singh, has been placed under suspension on September 13, 2001 and as per Annexure R-1 to the said affidavit, he has to be dealt with departmentally as well.
7. Respondent No. 9, Pritam Singh, Headmaster of the School has filed an affidavit stating about the steps taken by him from the day one. He has also stated that he has taken all steps and performed his duties according to law and at no stage he has intermeddled with the matter nor he has helped respondent No. 10.
8. On behalf of respondent No. 10, time to file affidavit-in-reply was sought. Normally, we would have acceded to such prayer. In our opinion, however, it would not be appropriate to keep the matter pending in view of the fact that appropriate steps have been taken and proceedings have been initiated by the public authorities as well as by the Department. The Inspector along with the police party, had gone to the place on September 11, 2001, F.I.R. has been registered for offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 201, I.P.C. Thus, the law has taken its own course. It is also pertinent to note that the department has also taken proceedings and respondent No. 10 has been placed under suspension. In these circumstances, nothing more requires to be done in the matter by this Court at this stage.
9. We may, however, refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Ram Kumar AIR 1984 SC 1029 : 1984 Cri LJ 832. In that case, the accused were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, the matter got settled between the parties. Since the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was not com-poundable, the High Court was requested to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-A, I.P.C, as it was agreed between the parties that the accused would give gift of field in favour of Smt. Maya Devi, widow of deceased as compensation. The High Court acceded to the request, converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-A, I.P.C. and disposed of the matter.
10. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the High Court and deprecating the practice, the Supreme Court observed (Para 2) :
We can only say that the judgment of the High Court has left as shocked and perplexed. We are at a total loss to understand it. The entire system of administration of criminal justice is reduced to a mockery. If the judgment of the High Court is upheld, it is as if a person who can afford to make gifts of land or money to the heirs of the victim may get away even with a charge of murder. Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice. And. justice to be dispensed is not palm tree justice or idiosyncratic justice. The judgment cannot stand a second’s scrutiny. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court so that the criminal appeals and revision may be reheard. On behalf of the accused, a very curious request was made, that the land gifted by the father of the accused to the widow of the deceased may be directed to be returned to the father of the accused. We take no notice of the gift and we reject the request.
11. In the instant case also, if it is true (for which we express no opinion), that as per the newspaper reports, the matter got ‘amicably’ settled and a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- was sought to be paid to the mother of deceased-Karnail Singh, a tender-aged boy, it is unconscionable. It is also contrary to law and against decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar 1984 Cri LJ 832. Since FIR is registered, we say no more, one way or the other. Let the matter be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. It is on record that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has already been recovered by police which is said to have been paid to-wards a part payment. The amount is lying with the investigating agency. Till the finalisation of proceedings, the amount will not be paid to any party. At the conclusion of the trial, however, the Court will pass an appropriate order in the light of the directions issued and observations made by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice discharged.
12. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All observations made hereinabove are strictly for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition and as and when the matter will be taken up by a competent Court, it will be decided strictly on its own merits.