The Supreme Court has set aside an order issuing summons against the Chairman of the Managing Committee of Maxfort School, Dwarka, in a case of alleged sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl child. The Apex Court noted that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, dealing with the offence of cruelty, cannot be applied unless it is shown that the accused had actual control over the victim child.

The Chairman of the Managing Committee approached the Apex Court challenging the order of summons issued by the Special Judge.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asserted, “While considering the applicability of Section 75 of the JJ Act, we are not concerned with the moral responsibility of the school's management. Assuming that the appellant was morally responsible, Section 75 of the JJ Act cannot be applied unless it is shown that the appellant had the actual charge of the victim child or control over the victim child.”

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

A four-year-old girl, studying in the nursery class at Maxfort School, Dwarka, New Delhi, was allegedly sexually assaulted by one of her classmates. 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 (POCSO Act). The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. Two protest petitions were filed by the complainant (mother of the victim child).

Considering that 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 (JJ Act). The charge sheet was filed against four persons: the Principal of the School, two teachers, and the Vice Chairman /officiating Chairman of the Managing Committee, which runs the school. The present appellant before the Apex Court was the Chairman of the Managing Committee. Based on the second protest petition, the Special Judge issued a summons to the appellant. The appellant challenged the order by filing a Revision Application, which was dismissed by the High Court in the impugned order.

Reasoning

Referring to section 75 of the JJ Act, the Bench explained that 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. The reference to the child in Section 75 is to the victim of the offence. The appellant was the Chairman of the Managing Committee, which runs a school which has classes from KG to 12th standard.

“Therefore, 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”, the Bench said.

The Bench further held, “...taking the case made out by the State as well as the second respondent as correct, by no stretch of imagination, Section 75 of the JJ Act could have been applied against the appellant.”

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned orders.

Cause Title: S.C. Narang v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 688)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, AOR Rajappa, Advocates Gowrishankar, G. Dhivyasri, Toshiv Goyal, Ritwik Mohapatra,Varun Tyagi

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, Senior Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Arunima Dwivedi, Shagun Thakur, Satvika Thakur, Anshul Narayan, AOR Prem Prakash

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.