AGRA: The Allahabad High Court has issued a sharp warning to a workplace for allegedly compelling employees to wear red Santa Claus caps, observing that such instructions could hurt the sentiments of people belonging to different faiths and disturb the peaceful and harmonious atmosphere of the workplace.
In a significant order, Justice Saurabh Srivastava also set aside the summoning order issued against an employee in a criminal case after finding a legal flaw in the manner in which the proceedings had been initiated. The court held that since the offences invoked against the employee were non-cognizable, the police charge sheet ought to have been treated as a complaint case rather than as a police case.
The order was passed on September 10 on a petition filed by Vikram Singh alias Vishwa Vikram Singh, who had challenged the charge sheet filed on September 20, 2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated December 21, 2023, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, and the criminal proceedings arising from the case.
Court flags compulsory Santa Claus cap instruction
During the proceedings, the High Court examined documents placed before it concerning instructions issued at Singh’s workplace. The court said the documents “crystal clearly” demonstrated that the superior authorities of “V Bazar” had created a compulsion for employees to wear Santa Claus red caps.
The court took particular note of the religious and personal implications of such a compulsory instruction. According to the order, the direction was “somehow hurting the sentiments of the different faith and beliefs.”
The High Court observed that such an approach was not permissible in a democratic system in which citizens are free to follow their respective faiths and beliefs.
The court subsequently issued a direct warning to Singh and his superior authorities against repeating such instructions. “Applicant along with his superior authorities are hereby warned not to repeat this type of instructions,” the court said.
The warning went beyond the question of workplace dress. The court specifically cautioned that such directions could affect the atmosphere at the workplace and disturb what it described as a “peaceful and harmonious atmosphere.”
The observation places the emphasis not merely on whether an employee was asked to participate in a particular workplace activity, but on the distinction between voluntary participation and a compulsory instruction that may affect employees holding different religious beliefs.
Criminal case also suffers legal setback
The workplace controversy was connected to a criminal case registered against Singh at Sadar Bazar police station in Agra. The FIR invoked Sections 298 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions correspond to Sections 298 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita under the current criminal law framework.
Singh approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. His counsel, however, made a limited legal argument before the court rather than asking the High Court to determine the entire case on merits.
The central submission was that Sections 298 and 504 IPC are non-cognizable offences. Consequently, the investigating officer’s charge sheet could not simply be treated as a police case in the manner it had been placed before the Magistrate.
The defence relied on the explanation attached to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the meaning of a complaint.
The provision stipulates that where a police report submitted following an investigation into a case discloses a non-cognizable offence, the report is to be deemed a complaint. The police officer who submits the report is correspondingly deemed to be the complainant.
State does not dispute legal objection
The State opposed Singh’s petition. However, the High Court noted that the State did not dispute the specific legal submission concerning the treatment of the charge sheet. The court consequently accepted the objection.
It held that the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer under Sections 298 and 504 IPC was required to be treated as a complaint. “In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 298, 504 I.P.C. shall be treated as complaint,” the court said.
The High Court concluded that the Magistrate had committed a legal error by taking cognizance of the matter as a State case. On that basis, the December 21, 2023 summoning order was set aside insofar as it related to Singh.
