S.C. NARANGversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

                 [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, and the Vice-Chairman/officiating Chairman
     of the Managing Committee, which runs the school. The present
     appellant is the Chairman of the Managing Committee. On the basis
     of the second protest petition, the learned Special Judge issued a
     summons to the appellant. The present appellant challenged the
     order by filing a Revision Application, which was dismissed by the
     High Court by the impugned order.
4.   The Special Court firstly observed that the appellant being the
     Chairman was responsible for implementation of the Guidelines
     issued by the Directorate of Education on 15th September, 2017 which
     made it mandatory to install sufficient number of CCTV cameras in
     the school premises so as to mandatorily cover all class rooms, labs,
     corridor, parking, library, areas outside wash rooms etc. The Special
     Court found fault with the appellant on the ground that the CCTV
     cameras were not installed in accordance with the Guidelines, and
     therefore, negligence was attributed to the appellant.
5.   The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has invited
     our attention to Section 75 of the JJ Act. He submitted that even
     taking the case of the prosecution as correct, it cannot be said
     that the appellant had the actual charge or control over the victim
     child. He submitted that the incident occurred within a few days of
     the Guidelines dated 15th September, 2017. Therefore, when the
     incident occurred, the CCTV cameras were not installed, which was
     done subsequently. He pointed out that the Principal of the school,
     two teachers and the Vice-Chairman have already been shown as
     accused for the offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
2556                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


6.   We also heard the learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared
     for the respondent-State. The learned counsel appearing for the
     second respondent submitted that, as the Chairman of the institution
     running the school, the appellant is fully responsible for taking care
     of the children enrolled in the school. As the Chairman, the appellant
     had full control over the school, and that is how Section 75 of the JJ
     Act applies. He submitted that the appellant is morally responsible
     for ensuring that such an incident does not happen in the school.
7.   Section 75 of the JJ Act reads thus:
          “Section 75: Punishment for cruelty to Child:- Whoever,
          having the actual charge of, or control over, a child,
          assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects
          the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted,
          abandoned abused, exposed or neglected in a manner
          likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical
          suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
          which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh
          rupees or with both:
          Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of
          the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances
          beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such
          abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this
          section shall not apply in such cases:
          Provided further that if such offence is committed by any
          person employed by or managing an organisation, which
          is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he
          shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may
          extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to
          five lakhs rupees:
          Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if
          the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental
          illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks
          or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable
          with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but
          which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be
          liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.”
                                                (Underlines supplied)
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2557

                   S.C. Narang v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.


8.   On a plain reading of the first part of Section 75 of the JJ Act, 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. 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.
9.   Therefore, 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. Therefore, the
     impugned order dated 24th December, 2020, passed by the Special
     Court, as well as the impugned order dated 18th November, 2022,
     passed by the High Court, are hereby set aside.
10. We, however, make it clear that the observations and the findings
    recorded herein are only for the purposes of examining the case
    of the appellant. What is held in this order will have no bearing on
    the pending case before the Special Court, and all questions in that
    regard are left open.
11. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain