Can Criminal Proceedings Be Quashed After Filing a Charge Sheet?

The Supreme Court recently quashed a police notice issued to a transgender woman activist from Manipur after she expressed regret over her social media posts accusing the Social Welfare Department of mismanaging funds meant for transgender welfare. The court accepted her undertaking not to make similar remarks in the future.

Court's Decision

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the summons, noting that the activist had joined the investigation and expressed remorse for her statements. The Court also took note of her commitment not to make further public comments of a similar nature. The Court emphasized that if she had any future grievances, they should be raised through appropriate channels instead of public platforms.

Legal Submissions

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioner, argued that the activist never intended to tarnish the reputation of any government body but merely sought to voice her concerns before the Manipur State Transgender Welfare Board as a representative of transgender women. He highlighted that she had joined the investigation and communicated her regret.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s position and urged the counsel representing Manipur to show leniency, given the activist’s genuine regret and cooperation. Following the counsels’ agreement, the Court quashed the notice issued under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and all subsequent proceedings, contingent upon the petitioner adhering to her undertaking.

Background of the Case

The issue arose after the petitioner posted comments on Facebook on September 1, 2023, alleging mismanagement of funds and programs intended for transgender welfare in Manipur. She stated that despite being invited to a meeting by the Manipur State Transgender Welfare Board, she was excluded from the decision-making process.

In response to her posts, male police officers visited her parents’ home on September 3, 2023, seeking her whereabouts. She was subsequently issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC, compelling her to appear before the police.

Seeking protection from these actions, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that being summoned to a police station exposed her to potential violence and violated her rights to bodily autonomy and safety. She referred to the landmark judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, which affirmed the rights and dignity of transgender individuals, emphasizing the need to protect them from discrimination.

The petitioner also cited the 1978 Supreme Court judgment in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, which highlighted the responsibility of police officers to adhere to legal safeguards designed to protect vulnerable groups, including women and children.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued notice on her plea, restraining the Manipur police from registering any new case based on her social media posts. In February 2024, the Court directed her to join the investigation.

Case Reference

Case Title: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023