Authority: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners/Accused Persons: Dr. S. Rajarajan (Assistant Professor‑III, School of Computing, SASTRA Deemed University), Dr. V.S. Shankar (Dean, School of Computing, SASTRA Deemed University), and the Management represented by Registrar Dr. R. Chandramouli of SASTRA Deemed University.
  • Respondents/Complainant: The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Thanjavur (Crime No.627 of 2025) and Venkata Narayana Angina.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P No.22807 of 2025) and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.MP No.19730 of 2025) filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quash of the FIR alleging an offence under Section 110 of BNSS, 2023 (attempt to commit culpable homicide).
  • Factual Matrix: The complainant’s son, a 3rd‑year B.Tech (CSE) student at SASTRA, allegedly attempted suicide on 07‑11‑2025 after being caught for alleged malpractice (use of Chat‑GPT on a smartphone) during a laboratory examination. The student submitted an apology letter, was reprimanded by the invigilator, Dean (Accused No.2) and Registrar (Accused No.3), but was allowed to continue and complete the exam at 1:30 p.m. He left the campus and attempted suicide at approximately 3:30 p.m. The FIR was registered under Section 110 of BNSS, 2023, alleging that the university officials’ actions amounted to an attempt to commit culpable homicide.
  • Submissions: Petitioners argued that the student admitted malpractice, was permitted to continue the exam, and that the officials had no intention or knowledge that their conduct would cause death, thus Section 110 does not apply. Respondent counsel highlighted Supreme Court judgments on institutional responsibility for student suicides and argued that the FIR should not be quashed.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the elements of Sections 100 and 110 of BNSS, 2023, and relevant Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Sunil Kumar Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi). It held that culpable homicide requires intention or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. The invigilator, Dean and Registrar merely reprimanded the student and allowed him to continue the examination; no such intention or knowledge was established.

Final Outcome

  • The Court concluded that proceeding with the criminal case would constitute an abuse of process of law.
  • The FIR in Crime No.627 of 2025 is quashed.
  • The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Topics: Legal; Higher Education