Delhi District Court
Ms. Prabhmeet Bawa vs The Amity University on 18 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04; SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. Revision No.12/20
Unique Case ID/CR No.189/2019
CNR No. DLSH010045912019
1. Ms. Prabhmeet Bawa
D/o. Sh. Harbhajan Singh
R/o. 436/8, Durgapuri Extn.,
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi110093.
............... Revisionist
Versus
1. The Amity University
Through Its Registrar
Noida201303
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
2. The Vice Chancellor
Amit University
Noida201303,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
CR No.189/19 Page 1 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs.
Amity University & Ors.
3. Dr. Ashok Chauhan
Founder President,
Amity University,
At: E27, Defence Colony,
New Delhi110024.
............... Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.02.2020
Date of Arguments : 22.09.2021
Date of order : 18.10.2021
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred u/s 397 Cr.P.C.
against the order dated 20.04.2019, passed by Sh. R.K.Pandey, Ld.MM02, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi, in complaint case No.2230/18 titled as Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University, whereby application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of revisionist were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to complainant to approach to the court, which is having competent territorial jurisdiction.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for revisionist as also by Mr. J.K.Chawla, Ld. Counsel for respondents. I have also perused trial court record and reply as CR No.189/19 Page 2 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
filed on behalf of respondent/Amity University.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that Ld.Trial Court completely misinterpreted the proposition of law while dismissing the complaint as filed on behalf of revisionist for want of territorial jurisdiction. It has been submitted that M.Phil Course (Clinical Psychology) offered by respondent University was not approved by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and deception was practised by means of letters dt. 05.07.2007 and 16.07.2007 and as these letters were received by the revisionist in Delhi, therefore, as per section 182 Cr.P.C, Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by revisionist. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has drawn my attention in respect of authorities reported as Lee Kun Hee & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors. passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dt. 01.02.2012; Suresh Kirar Vs. Prem Sagar & Anr. CM(M) 512/2017 & Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 115 (2004) DLT 212.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for respondents vehemently contended that section 182 Cr.P.C is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as no cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Ld. Counsel for respondents further argued that CR No.189/19 Page 3 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
complainant/revisionist after filing various complaints and appeals before Consumer Forum and Civil Courts, thereby admitting that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, once again raised the same issue by way of filing complaint case after a period of more than 10 years from the year when she took admission in the M.Phil Course at Amity University. Ld. Counsel for respondents further argued that due to poor academic performance, revisionist failed in three out of five subjects and to extort money under the guise of seeking refund of fee, she has filed a complaint case. Ld. Counsel for respondents has drawn my attention in respect of judgments reported as (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100, Y.Abraham Ajith And Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. & M/s. Srishti Gupta Vs. Amity University WP © No. 7247 of 2021.
5. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the grounds that impugned order passed by Ld.Trial Court is erroneous on the face of the record and suffers from material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction; that Ld. Trial Court ignored section 182 Cr.P.C as well as did not consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lee Kun Hee & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors.; that Ld. Trial Court illegally exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it; and that impugned order is against the settled principle of law.
CR No.189/19 Page 4 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs.
Amity University & Ors.
6. In brief, facts are that complainant, who is resident of Delhi had secured 52.3% marks in M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) from Annamalai University and upon reading the advertisement dt. 26.03.2007 at her residence on Internet, which was published by respondent/Amity University offering two years full time Post Graduate Course for M.Phil (Clinical Psychology) for the academic session 20072009 for candidates having masters degree with minimum 50% marks, the petitioner applied for the said course and upon considering her application, the respondents vide letter dt. 05.07.2007 informed the petitioner that her admission test will be conducted on 12.07.2007 and the fee of the Course is Rs.1,40,000/ Petitioner accordingly, appeared for the admission test and vide letter dt. 16.07.2007 sent at her residential address, she was informed that she has been selected for the said course and was asked to deposit fee of Rs.1,40,000/. Complainant took admission in the said course and deposited the fee totaling Rs.2,10,000/ on 22.08.2007, 05.03.2008 and 15.07.2008. On 10.12.2008, complainant enquired from the University by giving a written representation whether the said course is approved by RCI but no response was given by the University. It is stated that despite several requests and reminders, complainant was not allowed to sit in the examination held in the month of December, 2008. It is case of the complainant that when it appeared to her that University had given admission to her against the guidelines of RCI and they had realized three installments of the fee CR No.189/19 Page 5 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
i.e total Rs.2,10,000/ complainant made written representations to various authorities including RCI and to Hon'ble Minister of HRD. It is further case of the complainant that despite having prior knowledge of the guidelines of RCI the University had intentionally given illusive advertisement in the public at large for the admission in M.Phil (Clinical Psychology) on wrong and incorrect facts just to befool the innocent students and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit the fee to the University, which she would not have deposited, if she was not so cheated and therefore, respondents committed offence punishable u/s. 417/420/120B IPC. It is further case of the complainant that as per section 182 Cr.P.C, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction as the letters dt. 05.07.07 and 16.07.07 by which the complainant was given information confirming her admission and was directed to deposit the fee of Rs.1,40,000/ were delivered at her home within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, hence a complaint case for offence punishable u/s. 417/420/120B IPC was filed.
7. On the issue of jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi, section 177 and section 182 Cr.P.C are relevant and reproduced as under:
Section 177 Cr.P.C reads as under: "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into CR No.189/19 Page 6 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
Section 182 Cr.P.C reads as under: "182. Offence committed by letters, etc. (1) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused persons."
8. The plea of the revisionist is that the University had published the advertisement inviting the applications for M.Phil (Clinical Psychology) on Internet and she received letters dt. 05.07.2007 and 16.07.2007, by which she was asked to appear for written examination and was informed regarding her admission and to deposit the fee of Rs.1,40,000/ were delivered to her at her home and as such, as per section 182 Cr.P.C, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the complaint. Thus, it was argued by Ld. Counsel CR No.189/19 Page 7 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
for revisionist that complainant/revisionist was dishonestly induced by the University to deposit the fee, which she would not have deposited, if she was not so cheated. Letter dt. 05.07.2007 i.e annexure P2 & letter dt. 16.07.2007 i.e annexure P5 as placed on the trial court record show that same were in reference to the application submitted by revisionist for getting admission in M.Phil (Clinical Psychology); for her admission test and later on, for depositing the fee as she was selected in the said course.
9. The former part of section 182 (1) Cr.P.C postulates that for offences of which cheating is a component, if the alleged act of deception is shown to have been committed through communications/letters/messages the Court within whose jurisdiction said communications/letters/messages were sent or received would be competent to enquire it, however, latter part of section 182 Cr.P.C deals with jurisdiction of Courts, wherein not only cheating has been committed but there is also delivery of property by victim in consequent to such dishonest inducement by the accused which is punishable u/s. 420 IPC.
10. Offence of cheating under section 420 does not consist merely in a fraudulent or dishonest representation but also requires the delivery of property by the victim. In other words, to sustain a conviction under section 420 IPC, it has to be not only established CR No.189/19 Page 8 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
that the accused has cheated the victim but also that by doing so, the accused has dishonestly induced the victim who was cheated to deliver the property or do any other act mentioned in Section 420 IPC. Thus, where cheating is unaccompanied by delivery of property etc., as mentioned in Section 420 IPC, it would be an offence punishable only under section 417 IPC. But where the property has come to be parted with, offence of cheating becomes an offence punishable under section 420 IPC.
11. Perusal of trial court record shows that pursuant to alleged dishonest representation the complainant deposited the fee on 22.08.2007, 05.03.2008 & 15.07.2008 ie Rs.70,000/ each (totaling Rs.2,10,000/) at the Allahabad Bank, A6, Sector10 Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Since the victim allegedly pursuant to cheating parted with money at Noida, U.P, therefore, as per latter part of subsection 1 of section 182 Cr.P.C, the local jurisdiction relating to offence of cheating shall lie in the Courts within local jurisdiction whereof the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused persons. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and granted opportunity to complainant to approach the Court, which is having territorial jurisdiction. The authorities as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for revisionist are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the CR No.189/19 Page 9 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs. Amity University & Ors.
present case. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
12. Copy of this order along with TCR be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to record room. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Announced in the open court Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Location: Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts Date: 2021.10.18 15:17:31 on 18.10.2021 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) +0530 ASJ/Shahdara/KKD Court Delhi.
CR No.189/19 Page 10 of 10 Prabhmeet Bawa Vs.
Amity University & Ors.