Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Zakir Mohd vs State & Anr on 14 December, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.)(CRLMP) NO.2371/2014
Jakir Mohd. Madani S/o Shri Tahir Mohd. Madani, By
caste Musalman, Aged about 55 years, Resident of
678, Balaji Nagar, Segwa, Housing Board,
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Shri Ajay Mali S/o Shri Satya Narain Mali,
Resident of Village Binota, Tehsil Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
...Respondents
__________________________________________
Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for petitioner
Mr. V. S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Motilal Choudhary, for respondent-complainant.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
ORDER
14/12/2016 Accused petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail FIR No.170/2014 of Police Station, Sadar, Chittograrh. In the impugned FIR, petitioner is charged for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that respondent-complainant submitted a complaint before ( 2 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') alleging therein that pursuant to report published in newspaper he contacted petitioner - Managing Director of S.K. College, Chittorgarh for seeking admission in Three Years' Engineering Diploma Course. The complaint further reveals that the accused-petitioner during deliberations assured the complainant that S.K. College (for short, 'College') is recognized by Sikkim University and thereupon he completed all the formalities of admission in the year 2011 to prosecute his Diploma Course in Electrical Engineering by depositing Rs.51,000/- (25,500+25,500) on 31st of July 2011. It is also borne out from the complaint that requisite receipts of the amount were issued to him and he completed two years' course for which he was issued mark-sheets signed by Controller of Examinations. After issuance of Second Year's mark- sheet on 3rd of February 2013, when the complainant made endeavour to prosecute his Third Year Diploma Course, the management of College denied him admission without furnishing any plausible explanation. Finally, the College management informed him on 21st of May 2014 that recognition of the College has been cancelled. With all these allegations in the complaint, the complainant has castigated the petitioner, Controller of Examinations and ( 3 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] other persons of Sikkim University for cheating and hatching a criminal conspiracy in preparing two years forged mark-sheets of his Diploma Course. Complainant specifically asserted that criminal delinquency on the part of petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is clearly apparent and their omissions and commissions have jeopardized his entire career. The complaint was sent to the concerned police station by the learned trial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon impugned FIR was registered for investigation.
In order to lay challenge to the impugned FIR, it is pleaded in the petition by petitioner that the College is imparting education to students in various disciplines and in the year 2010 it was granted permission by the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM), Sikkim for registration and admission to the private students in Engineering Diploma courses and I.T. Programmes for the Sessions 2010-11. It is also pleaded in the petition that EIILM University is recognized by University Grants Commission as per University Grants Commission (Establishment of and ( 4 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. For showing credentials of the College, it is also submitted in the petition that before recognizing and authorizing the College, inspection was carried out by the EIILM University through M/s. Swastik Educational Charitable Trust, Bhatinda (Punjab) and thereafter the College was permitted to grant admissions to private students in Diploma courses. The requisite documents to this effect were also placed on record. The petition further unfurls that the College came to know that UGC has not approved Distance Mode of Education through franchise by the EIILM University vide its letter dated 4th of September 2013 but the said information was not divulged to the petitioner. It is with this positive assertion, petitioner has averred in the petition that after filing of the complaint by complainant, he made an attempt to verify from EIILM University regarding Distance Mode of Education and on being satisfied that the said University is not authorized to impart Distance Education, conveyed the said information to the complainant. After receiving the said information, complainant submitted an application on 26th of March 2014 for seeking admission in Jodhpur National ( 5 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] University and thereupon the petitioner deposited fee with the said University. While asserting in the petition that the College was having franchise of EIILM University for conducting various courses since 2009, it is submitted by the petitioner that no offence as such is made out against him and the FIR merits annulment.
To assail the impugned FIR, a specific ground is urged by the petitioner that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner has also taken shelter of a ground that bare reading of FIR makes it crystal clear that the same is not spelling out any offence against him. Refuting all the offences attributed against him, petitioner has submitted that the FIR is a glaring example of abuse of the process of Court. In totality, the petitioner has made an attempt to shift all the allegations on EIILM University for the alleged omissions and commissions to seek his absolvement from all the allegations and for quashment of FIR.
( 6 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to assail impugned FIR, has reiterated all the grounds set out in the petition. Learned counsel, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, has also submitted that respondent- complainant has sorted out his disputes with the petitioner and in support thereof reliance is placed on xerox copy of compromise.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that investigation in the matter has been completed and prima facie incriminating evidence is available against petitioner for the alleged offences. Mr. Rajpurohit submits that during investigation it was revealed that EIILM University has not been recognized by the UGC to impart distance mode of education out of Sikkim State and even within the State also University is not authorized to open "Off Campus Study Centre", therefore, involvement of petitioner in commission of offence is clearly made out. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during investigation no written compromise was submitted before the Investigating Officer and as such factum of compromise is not discernible from the factual report.
( 7 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, Mr. Motilal Choudhary, at the outset, has completely disowned and repudiated the alleged compromise arrived at between the petitioner and complainant. Learned counsel submits that no such compromise is arrived at and therefore looking to the culpability of petitioner for the serious offences, no interference in the matter is warranted.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the materials available on record.
It is really a sordid tale of the complainant, who has been duped by petitioner and other incumbents, in helm of affairs of the College. Complainant, an aspirant for prosecuting his diploma course in Electrical Engineering, was allured by the College on the pretext that it is recognized as a franchise of EIILM University to impart education through distance mode of education in that discipline. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that Diploma in Electrical ( 8 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] Engineering through Distance Mode of Education is unthinkable because such diploma requires practical classes also where a student can do necessary experiments.
Be that as it may, a University established under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act'), or a deemed University within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act, cannot impart education of the courses and curriculum other than prescribed by UGC. The UGC, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, is empowered to take such steps, as it may think fit, for promotion and coordination of University education and for determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. It is needless to observe here that in the matter of engineering degree courses or diploma courses, the Apex body is AICTE, which is authorized to prescribe courses and curriculums. If a University is imparting education of engineering degree courses or diploma courses, it is obliged to adhere to the norms prescribed by AICTE for such disciplines. Indisputably, when the EIILM University itself was not ( 9 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] authorized to impart education through distance mode of education within the Sikkim State, obviously it had no authority whatsoever to give franchise to anybody including the S.K. College for opening "Off Campus Study Centre". As per the version of petitioner, S.K. College is involved in imparting education since 2009 in various courses, then it is rather difficult to believe that it has not verified requisite facts about the EIILM University as to whether it is authorized to impart education through distance made of education by opening "Off Campus Study Centre". When the College has admitted the students, it cannot plead ignorance that EIILM University was not permitted by the UGC to open "Off Campus Study Centre". Moreover, if the University concerned was having no permission to open "Off Campus Study Centre", how and in what manner it has issued marksheets for two years is a matter of serious concern. In common parlance, the nexus between University and the College in commission of offence per se cannot be ruled out. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations made in the FIR, it is clear that same discloses commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner. Imparting education is a sacrosanct duty of an ( 10 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] institution but profiteering or commercialization of education is a menace to the Society, which cannot be countenanced. Any institution, which is involved in imparting education, is not expected to ruin career of students in such a callous manner. In totality, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner that it is in La-La Land about status of EIILM University as to whether it has been granted permission by UGC to impart distance education outside Sikkim State is per se not fathomable in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.
As regards the alleged compromise, suffice it to observe that the complainant has completely disowned the same, and therefore, the same is not at all worth reliance or credence whatsoever.
A very vital fact that investigation in the matter has been completed, cannot lose sight of this Court to non-suit the petitioner inasmuch as investigation is a statutory right of police where the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Investigation is the stage of crime detection and at that stage role of ( 11 of 11 ) [CRLMP-2371/2014] judiciary is very much limited to interfere unless there is miscarriage of justice. In totality, I am unable to find any abuse of the process of Court in investigation so as to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, looking to the criminal delinquency attributed to the petitioner, it is not possible to infer that permitting the investigation to reach its logical conclusion would result in miscarriage of justice.
Resultantly, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
arora/