JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Kailash Prasad Sharma, has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 394/12 registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa for offence under Section 354 IPC and for offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happened to be the Head Master of the Government Primary School, Deedwana, Lalsot, District Dausa at the relevant time. On 6.9.2012, one Shambhu Lal lodged a report at Police Station Lalsot wherein he claimed that his minor daughter is studying in Class-V at the above mentioned school. He further claimed that on 6.9.2011, the petitioner called his daughter inside a room on the pretext that she has to clean the room. When his daughter went inside the room, the petitioner locked the room from inside, and started physically misbehaving with her. Consequently, his daughter screamed. Two students and few members of the staff rushed to her rescue; after getting the door opened, they took his daughter out of the room. The child came crying back home. Both the students, Lalita and Sharda, told him as to what had happened. They also informed him that the petitioner had also physically misbehaved with them on an earlier occasion. Lastly, he claimed that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 394/12, was chalked out for the offences mentioned above. 3. The incident seems to have disturbed four persons, namely Rukmani, Shanti, Manohari (mother of the small child), and one Prakash. They went to the school to protest about the petitioner's misbehaviour. It is claimed that before the aforesaid persons could reach the school, the petitioner had instigated some of the villagers to come to the school and defend him. Thus, when the three women and Prakash reached the school, they were met by a large crowd who called the women by their caste reference. The villagers also misbehaved with the women, and outraged their modesty. With regard to this incident, Rukmani and others filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation to the Police Station, Lalsot. Consequently, the police registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 412/12 for offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 354, 336 and 504 IPC. 4. With regard to this incident, Rukmani and others filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation to the Police Station, Lalsot. Consequently, the police registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 412/12 for offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 354, 336 and 504 IPC. 4. It seems that the incident also agitated a large number of villagers. Therefore, the villagers blocked the road and shouted slogans against the administration. The police was immediately informed about the agitation raised by the villagers due to the petitioner's misbehaviour with the small girl. When the police went to speak to the agitated villagers, the villagers manhandled the police personnel. Consequently, the SHO, Babulal lodged a FIR against a large number of villagers, namely FIR No. 395/12 for offences under Sections 143, 336, 427, 283, 332, 353 IPC. 5. Because of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the District Education Officer held a departmental enquiry against him. However, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry. 6. Moreover, while investigating the case of FIR No. 412/12, the FIR lodged by Rukmani, the Police has eventually concluded that it was a false case. Therefore, on 8.11.2012, the police has submitted a negative Final Report in the said FIR. Hence, the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 394/12. 7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that while investigating the FIR No. 412/12, the police has concluded that even the present FIR, namely FIR No. 394/12, has been lodged falsely. Although, the police has yet to submit a negative Final Report in the present FIR, but while submitting a negative Final Report in FIR No. 412/12, the said conclusion had already been drawn. Secondly, even in the Departmental inquiry held against the petitioner, he was exonerated on the basis of statement of the small girl and of other witnesses. Therefore, continuation of investigation in the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Secondly, even in the Departmental inquiry held against the petitioner, he was exonerated on the basis of statement of the small girl and of other witnesses. Therefore, continuation of investigation in the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Moreover, relying on the case of P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, [ (1996) 9 SCC 1 ] , the learned counsel has contended that once a person is exonerated in the departmental proceeding on identical charge, then the FIR deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, relying on the cases of Dinesh Kumar Bangad v. State of Rajasthan, [2012(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 292] and Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, [2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1473] the learned counsel has contended that once the department inquiry has exonerate the delinquent official, the criminal prosecution on the basis of the same fact is not sustainable. Relying on the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 633] , the learned counsel has pleaded that in fact, two FIRs have been lodged with regard to the same incident, namely FIR No. 394/12 and 412/12. However, the two FIRs cannot be filed against the same incident. Hence, the present FIR deserves to be quashed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned FIR, and considered the case law cited at the Bar. 9. The courts have a constitutional duty to protect the weaker sections of the society, be they women, children, physically challenged persons, or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. While discharging its constitutional duty, the court can neither be derailed by legal technicalities nor by pleas of precedent, nor by high-flown legal arguments. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, [ 2000(4) SCC 75 ] , the Apex Court had opined that "a socially sensitive Judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos". The increase in crime against women, the increase in child sexual abuse are open secrets in our society. Considering the devastating effect of such offences on women and children, the Parliament has enacted specific laws in order to protect these two groups. Only recently, the Parliament has passed the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 10. The allegation against the petitioner is a serious one. Considering the devastating effect of such offences on women and children, the Parliament has enacted specific laws in order to protect these two groups. Only recently, the Parliament has passed the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 10. The allegation against the petitioner is a serious one. According to the complainant, he happens to be the Principal of the school wherein his small daughter was studying. Teachers, who are supposed to be a role model of the students and who are intuitively respected by them, cannot be permitted to play havoc with the lives of the children. After all, the teachers and the Principals are the trusties of the children. They are duty bound to protect and promote them. Therefore, a Principal of a school who betrays the trust of his flock has to be dealt with appropriately. 11. While considering such cases, the court cannot be oblivious of the harsh realities of our villages. The petitioner not only happens to be the Principal of the school in the village, but may even be one of the most literate, educated person in the village. Thus, both by his official position, and by his level of education, he commands certain respect from the people at large. Moreover, being a person of higher caste, there are certainly chances of caste loyalties being involved in the present matter. After all, the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste, while the petitioner happens to be a member of higher caste. Further, naturally, the complainant is socially and educationally unequal to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the small child and other witnesses have resciled from their statements given to the police, in the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, chances that they were pressurised to do so cannot be ruled out. For, the extent of power being wielded by the petitioner is obvious from the fact that on the day of the alleged incident, he had mustered enough villagers to browbeat the three women and Prakash who had come to the school to protest against his misbehaviour. 12. It is also very likely that the negative Final Report submitted by the police in FIR No. 412/12 is also being done under certain influences. 12. It is also very likely that the negative Final Report submitted by the police in FIR No. 412/12 is also being done under certain influences. For, the FIR lodged by the police themselves, namely FIR No. 395/12, recorded the fact that the villagers are agitated because the Head Master of the school has misbehaved with a small child. Similarly, the FIR No. 412/12 lodged by Rukmani had recorded the fact that the complainant along with others had gone to the school to protest against the misbehaviour of the Head Master. Yet the very same police has now taken a u-turn to conclude that "the FIR lodged by Rukmani with regard to rude behaviour and offences committed by the crowd at the school was a false one". Moreover, while drawing the said conclusion in FIR No. 412/12, the police has equally concluded that the FIR lodged by the present complainant is also false one. If the conclusion drawn by the police is to be believed, then it is inexplicable as to why the villagers were so agitated on 6.9.2012 that they had blocked the roads and manhandled the police personnel. After all, according to the police, the small child was never molested by the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that exoneration in the departmental enquiry, the negative Final Report being filed by the police is all stage managed. 13. In the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satavdekar [ (2008) 14 SCC 1 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "we should also keep in mind that it is well settled that a judgment of the court has not to be treated as Euclid's formula [vide Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 ] . As observed by this court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani [ (2004) 8 SCC 579 ] , observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's formula nor as provisions of the statute". Obviously, each case has to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, the observations made in the case law relied upon by the petitioner may not rush to his rescue. 14. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of P.S. Rajya (supra). Obviously, each case has to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, the observations made in the case law relied upon by the petitioner may not rush to his rescue. 14. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of P.S. Rajya (supra). In P.S. Rajya's case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if the charges which are identical could not be established in departmental proceedings then criminal prosecution on same charges cannot continue. In that case the appellant being a public servant was accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The basis of criminal charge against him was the valuation of his house by the CBI fixed at Rs. 7,69,300/- as against the earlier valuation by the IT department at Rs. 4,67,000/-. A departmental enquiry was held against the appellant in that case for his being found in possession of disproportionate assets and simultaneously a criminal proceeding for the same charge was also launched against him. In the departmental enquiry conducted by CVC, the Commissioner submitted report exonerating the appellant from all the charges. This report of the CVC exonerating the appellant of the charges was concurred by Union Public Service Commission. The report of the UPSC was finally accepted by the President of India and the appellant thereby was exonerated of charges of possessing disproportionate assets in the departmental enquiry held against him. However, he was charged in criminal case filed by the CBI for offence under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of report submitted by CVC and concurred by UPSC. The challenge to the order of framing of charge preferred by the appellant was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it was held as under:- "The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings." 15. While the case of P.S. Rajya deals with disproportionate assets to the known sources of income, while the finding of the CVC was concurred by the UPSC and finally accepted by His Excellency the President of India, no such concurrence and acceptance exist in the present case. 16. Moreover, in the case of P.S. Rajya (supra), the Apex Court had noted that the case falls within many of the circumstances narrated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal [1992(Suppl.) (1) SCC 335] . However, the present case does not fall within any of the circumstances enumerated in the case of Bhajanlal. Thus, the case of P.S. Rajya (supra) does not help the petitioner. 17. The case of T.T. Antony (supra) is inapplicable to the present case for the simple reason that the petitioner is not seeking quashing of the FIR No. 394/12 on the ground that another FIR, namely FIR No. 412/12 relates to the same incident. Even a perusal of these two FIRs clearly reveals that although, the incident of molestation of the child may have been narrated as part of the story by Rukmani in her FIR, she goes to speak about subsequent events, i.e. manhandling and outraging of modesty of three women by large crowd which had gathered at the school. Therefore, the ratio of T.T. Antony's case that the two FIRs cannot be sustained for the same incident, is not applicable to the present case. 18. It is true that the burden of proof in a departmental enquiry is less than the burden of proof in a criminal case. But it is equally true that the finding of a departmental enquiry is not binding on a criminal case [Ref. to Radheyshyam v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 581 ]. Moreover, even a negative Final Report submitted by the police is not binding on the trial court. But it is equally true that the finding of a departmental enquiry is not binding on a criminal case [Ref. to Radheyshyam v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 581 ]. Moreover, even a negative Final Report submitted by the police is not binding on the trial court. Most importantly, despite submission of a negative Final Report, the complainant still has to be given a chance to file a protest petition. Undoubtedly, the Magistrate has the power to reject the negative Final Report and to accept the protest petition. Since the society expects to be protected from child molesters, a chance has to be given to the complainant to vindicate his stand against the petitioner. Therefore, merely on assumption that in the departmental enquiry the Department has failed to prove its case, the option to the complainant and to the prosecution to establish their case cannot be shut-out at the initial stage of investigation. Both the investigating agency and the trial court need to be given a free play at the joints to exercise the powers vested in them. Thus, the case of P.S. Rajya (supra) does not help the petitioner. Similarly, the case of Dinesh Kumar Bangad (supra) and the case of Sohan Lal (supra) do not help the petitioner. 19. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that while interfering with a FIR, the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited one. Moreover, in catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that the facts mentioned in the FIR should be taken as un-controverted; if the facts make out the ingredients, then the courts should not interfere with the FIR. 20. Before parting with this judgment, this court does expect the trial court to not only show sensitivity towards the plight of the child, but also expect it to ensure that the child and other witnesses are duly protected from any pressure which may be exerted either by the petitioner, or others showing loyalty towards the petitioner, during the course of trial. 21. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. The Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******