Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prof. (Dr.) Amarika Singh S/O Shri Late ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 September, 2022
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
(1 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4740/2022
Prof. (Dr.) Amarika Singh S/o Shri Late Ram Deni Singh, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o 231, Janaki Vihar Colony, 60 Ft. Road,
Lucknow, U.P.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG/Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA cum AAG Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Judgment reserved on : 29/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022
1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of FIR No. 106/2022 registered with Ashok Nagar Police Station in the city of Jaipur for offences under Section 166, 167, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The prayer is on the ground that the FIR does not disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence rather has been instituted due to political and departmental rivalries.
2. The backdrop of the FIR is that a proposal came to the State Government on 12.3.2021 for establishing a private University named as Gurukul University at Sikar in the State of Rajasthan. The proposal was from trustee of Gurukul Educational Society. The said proposal contained the details of availability of requirements with specific documents of land in possession of Gurukul (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (2 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] Educational society. The State Government has already issued executive directions dated 26.7.2007 giving guidelines for establishment of private universities. Under guideline No. (4), the State Government on receipt of the proposal and the project report for establishment of a university shall constitute a committee consisting of such members as may be specified by it to examine the proposal and the project. Accordingly, the State Government constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Professor I.V. Trivedi, Vice Chancellor, Govind Guru Tribal University. The aforesaid committee submitted its report dated 19.6.2021. Considering the report of the committee, the State issued letters of intent to Gurukul Shikshan Sanshtan on 2.7.2021 with specific information required to be furnished by the Gurukul Shikhshan Sansthan. Accordingly, the Gurukul Shishan Sansthan submitted a report on 15.9.2021. Thereafter in accordance to guideline (11) on receiving the compliance report, the State Government constituted another committee, headed by the petitioner and other members to verify the compliance report. The order of the State Government dated 29.9.2021 contains specification of task to be performed by the new committee. The petitioner has stated in para 8 of the petition as follows:
"8. ... ... ... After which the petitioner along with the committee members, visited the campus and the buildings at the site and physically verified, the facilities at the campus such as the Academic Block, Administrative Block, Library, Laboratories, Classrooms, Seminar Hall, Playgrounds, Sports Facilities, Hostel etc."
3. On presentation of the report by the committee headed by the petitioner, a bill was introduced in the Vidhan Sabha after (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (3 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] compliance of the required procedure for establishment of a private University namely Gurukul University in the State. The discussion on the bill was held on 22.3.2022. During discussion, some alarming facts were brought to the notice of the house, especially non-availability of land or building at the proposed place of the university. Thereafter, State Government constituted an enquiry committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. The committee after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned, submitted report dated 1.4.2022. The enquiry committee reported that the committee headed by the petitioner colluded with the Gurukul Educational Institution and just to give wrongful gain to the University, presented a false verification report to the State Government. The committee of the petitioner had reported that there is one chunk of land measuring 80.31 acres possessed by the Gurukul. The committee headed by the petitioner misrepresented that the said agricultural land was already converted for institutional and health services purpose. In fact, such conversion was effected on 25.11.2021. The committee headed by the petitioner wrongly submitted that building of the University is already complete with all required faculties. In fact, the so called 80.31 acres of land was divided into two pieces and situated in two different Tehsils and the distance between the two places was 28 Kms. In fact, Gurukul Educational Society had only eight acres of land which was much less than the required for opening and running a University. Before a small building of the Gurukul Educational Society, the petitioner and other members of the Committee got photographs to substantiate that the society had sufficient building to run a university. The committee has wrongly reported that buildings in different blocks were there to (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (4 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] cater the need of the University as administrative block, academic block. etc. etc. Thus the committee headed by the petitioner prepared a false document. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other members of the committee as well as person involved in placing proposal for the private university.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Hora contends that the petitioner is an academician of the highest order and has surrendered his life to uplift the education. The petitioner held different dignified posts in different institutions and at the relevant time was Vice Chancellor of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. A bare perusal of the FIR may make out a case of some negligence on the part of the committee which is cognizable for departmental action for negligence and in pursuance of a departmental proceedings, the petitioner and other members have already been put under suspension on different dates. Moreover, the FIR does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence, hence criminal proceeding is abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on these cases:
(1) Kalusing Dalesing Rajput Vs. The State of Maharashtra; Manu/MH/0122/1969 (2) Sardar Jaswant Singh Vs. the State; AIR 1966 J & K 96. (3) Ramesh Chand Bahree Vs. Om Prakash & Anr., MANU/RH/0258/1976 (4) State of Gujarat Vs. Sh. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) 2 SCC 392;
(5) Legal Remembrance Vs. Manmatha Bhushan Chatterjee (1924) ILR 51 Cal. 250 (6) Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1 (7) Hari Sao & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, 1969 (3) SCC 107 (8) Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., 1970 (2) SCC 740 (9) Matilal Chakrabarti Vs. the King 1949 SCC Online Cal 230 (10) Ripudaman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C. No. 167/2018, decided on 1.2.2018 (11) Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCC 751 (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (5 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] (12) H.L. Rangaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, Cr. Pet. No. 11271/2013 decided on 11.2.2015 (13) Jitendra Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appl. No. 06344/2016 decided on 30.7.2018 (14) Smt. Rameshwari Devi Vs. State & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 3162/2015 decided on 16.11.2017 (15) Raj Gopal Acharjya Goswami Vs. Upendra Acharjya Goswami, 1926 SCC Online Pat 82 (16) T.R. Arya & ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1986 SCC P & H 7 (17) Prithvi Singh Vs. State of Raj. & ors., MANU/RH/0324/2016 (18) Madha Ram Vs. State of Raj., 2017 SCC OnLine Raj.1045 (19) Rekha Bano Vs. State of Raj., S.B. Cr. Misc. pet. No. 1561/2019, decided on 7.3.2019 (20) Smt. Rameshwari Devi Vs. State & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 3162/2015, decided on 16.11.2017 (21) Dhapli & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 5506/2020 decided on 29.11.2021 (21) R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of T.N. & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 632.
5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate cum Additional Advocate General contends that it is not disputed that report submitted by the committee headed by the petitioner was factually a false report. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings is no bar for criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cognizable offence are disclosed in the FIR which is in fact disclosed.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.
7. This Court is not inclined to open its mind on each and every offence alleged in the FIR which may prejudice the pending investigation or future course of trial if the occasion so arises. However, for the purpose of deciding whether the impugned FIR requires to be investigated, the Court has examined the ingredients of offences under Section 167 and 415 IPC which are strongly agitated by the parties whether they are made out or not. Offence under Section 167 IPC, is cognizable offence. The provision reads as follows:
"167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury.--Whoever, (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (6 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] being a public servant, and being, as 1[such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only those public servants can be prosecuted under Section 167 IPC who were charged with the preparation of any document in the capacity of such public servant. It is not the official business of a Vice Chancellor to prepare a document as asked by the State Government, therefore, the report submitted by the petitioner does not come within the mischief of aforesaid provision as this was an act beyond his official responsibility.
9. The term public servant is defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner comes under item No. `sixth' which are reproduced below:
"21.The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following, namely:
......
......
(vi)Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority;
10. In the case on hand, the State Government is a public authority competent under the executive instructions as referred above to constitute a committee to perform the referred task. There is no dispute that the executive instructions have force of law unless they are contrary to the Acts or Rules prevailing in the (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (7 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] field. Evidently, role of the petitioner in this case was of "other person" to whom any matter has been referred for report by any other competent public authority. The petitioner is a public servant coming within the mischief of Section 167 IPC. There is prima facie material that the petitioner along with others prepared a document (report herein) knowingly to be incorrect. When knowingly incorrect information was supplied, the intention would be evident that it was likely to cause injury to any person.
For the purpose of consideration of this petition for quashing of FIR, it is held that a prima facie offence under Section 167 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The offence alleged is cognizable one, hence the investigation cannot be scuttled at the threshold.
11. Section 415 IPC defines the word `cheating' and is in two parts:-
(a) Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property,
(b) or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
12. There is no dispute that the first part is not applicable in the facts of this case nor for fulfilling the requirement of second part, fraudulent and dishonest inducement is required. The requirement of part (b) is the intentional inducement to the person deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. The petitioner herein intentionally submitted a report in favour of Gurukul knowing the fact well that (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (8 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] the report is not factually correct and the State Government had moved the matter ahead relying on the report of the petitioner. If the State Government would have been correctly informed about the factual situation, the State Government must have omitted to move forward to grant permission for establishment of private university. Further requirement is that act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Again, there is no dispute that the act of the petitioner was not likely to cause damage to the body, mind and property of the State Government.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the "State" is a juristic person. An inanimate object cannot be cheated or bear reputation, therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of calcutta High Court in Legal Remembrance (supra).
14. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court did not say that the railway company has no 'reputation' rather noticed that the damage to the reputation was remote one and not direct, therefore, offence under Section 415 would not be applicable.
15. In Legal Remembrance (supra), the employees of the railway company in collusion with B.P. Singh Colliery, allotted more railway wagons for carrying coals than was permissible as per standing decision taken by the transport officer of the railway. The relevant part of the observation is being reproduced below:
"A corporation cannot well suffer damage in mind or body and the charge maintains that the Railway Company suffered damage not in (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (9 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] property but in reputation. I will concede that an incorporated Company may have a reputation for the good conduct of the business or undertaking of the Company and that the Company's reputation may be quite distinct from that of any of its officers, however highly placed. Under the definition, however, it is clearly not sufficient to say merely that the malpractices of the two checkers brought or tended to bring the administration of the Company into discredit. The question is whether the allotment of the excess wagons to one colliery caused or was likely to cause, within the meaning of the definition, damage to the Company in reputation. It was argued very plausibly for the Crown that under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, Section 42(2), "a Railway Administration shall not make or give any undue or unreasonable preference to, or in favour of, any particular person", that the East Indian Railway Company sets great store on its reputation for impartiality and that this reputation was affected or endangered by the allotment of the wagons. I will not say positively that the Railway Company suffered no damage to its reputation but in view of the authorities I am disposed to conclude that this damage was too remote. It appears to me that the damage here complained of is indirect and ulterior rather than the direct natural or probable consequence of the action which the Company was deceived into taking. The direct consequence of one colliery getting more than their fair share of wagons is that other collieries must suffer the disadvantage of getting less than their fair share. If it be said that a suit might have been brought against the Company for damages for undue preference, such a possibility under Section 415 would come under the head of damage or likelihood of damage to property and not of damage to reputation. A charge alleging damage or likelihood of damage to property would, I think, have been easier to support:
than the charge framed. For in my opinion in a case of the present description it is rather in the region of property than in that of mind and reputation that the natural and probable consequences should be looked for. "
16. The words reputation has been defined in the Black's law dictionary as "the estimate in which a person is held by others". In legal glossary 1988 page 291 "reputation is the common or (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (10 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] general estimate of a person with respect to character or other qualities".
17. In a democratic set up, the elected Government has to face the people for its acts and omissions, therefore, it cannot be argued that the State has no reputation. The deeds and misdeeds of the State Government is well appreciated and translated into action by the people in general at the time of election of the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that only for the reason that the State is an inanimate body, it has no reputation. No Government would like to earn disrepute. It can be well imagined what would have happened if the bill would have been passed and act would have come into force for establishment of Gurukul Private University and thereafter, the public would have raised the voice that neither there is land for the University nor there is building for the University and a fake University has been granted such permission by the State Government. Then only the disrepute of the State Government would have surfaced. Therefore, evidently a case under second part of the definition of Section 415 IPC is made out. The committee of the petitioner knowingly and intentionally by submitting a factually wrong report persuaded the State Government to pass an Act for establishment of private University which the State Government would not have done in the event of submission of correct factual reports regarding non availability of land and building for the university. Second part of the definition of Section 415 IPC that the act of inducement is likely to cause damage to the reputation of the State Government is also prima facie disclosed in the FIR.
Nothing has been brought on the record to substantiate that the impugned FIR was result of any political reason or (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) (11 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022] departmental rivalry because no departmental person is involved in the registration of the FIR, rather machinery of the State has instituted the FIR.
18. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not cover the field in the facts and circumstances of this case stated above. The cases were decided in quite different factual scenario of the individual cases.
19. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. It is made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall prejudice the case of any of the parties in future proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/61 (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)