Delhi District Court
In Re vs The State on 18 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.146/2021
CNR No. DLND10028262021
In re:
Sh. Harihara Ravi lyer,
S/o Dr. Sesha Harihara lyer,
R/o. HBlock, 07D, Saket (Near Gurudwara),
New Delhi110017 ......Revisionist/complainant
Versus
1. The State
(Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
New Delhi.
2. Smt. Lakshmi Venugopal,
W/O. Dr. P.V. Venugopal R/O A11,
Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi110017.
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
3. Dr. P.V. Venugopal
R/o A11, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi110017. India
(M) 9810183872
Email : drvenugopaleth.net
venunewdelhiqmail.com
4. Society for Catholic School of Archdiocese of Delhi
Through Authorized representative of Archbishop,
CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 1 of 7
1, Cathedral House, Ashoka Place,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001
Email: [email protected]
(M) 9871720833
5. The Mater Dei School,
Through the Principal
Tilak Lane, New Delhi110001.
Email : contactmaterdeischool.in
6. The Managing Committee of Mater Dei School,
Through Chairperson
Tilak Lane, New Delhi110001.
Email : contactmaterdeischool.in
Also At :W89, Prabhalaya,
Greater KailashII, New Delhi110048 ...... Respondents
Date of filing revision petition : 22.03.2021
Date of hearing arguments : 31.03.2022
Date of order : 18.04.2022
Appearances:
Sh. Nikhil Kapoor, Advocate for the petitionerrevisionist with
petitionerrevisionist in person.
Sh. Ravinder Khandelwal, Addl. PP for the State/R1.
Ms. Akriti Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 through Video
Conferencing.
Sh. Tushar Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
ORDER:
1. This order shall decide the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitionerrevisionist/complainant under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing an order dated CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 2 of 7 18.02.2021 passed by the Court of Sh. Chander Jit Singh, Ld ACMMII, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court after appreciating the presummoning evidence was pleased to hold that there was prima facie case to proceed against the accused/ respondent No.2 under Section 420/471 IPC but at the same time holding that there was no material or grounds made out to proceeding against the other accused persons.
FACTS:
2. In a nutshell, a complaint was instituted by the petitioner revisionist on 14.07.2017 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against his mother inlaw i.e. accused/respondent No.2 Smt. Lakshmi Venugopal and father inlaw i.e. accused/respondent No.3 Dr. P.V. Venugopal alleging that accused/respondent No2 obtained a forged and fabricated M.A. (Arts) degree in connivance with her husband and the remaining accused persons viz. accused/respondent No.4 Society for Catholic School of Archdiocese of Delhi; accused/respondent No.5 the Mater Dei School and accused/respondent No.6 the Managing Committee of Mater Dei School colluded with accused/respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in allowing her the benefit of a forged and fabricated degree by employing accused/respondent no. 1 as a PGT, and thereby, defrauding the students community.
3. On leading the presummoning evidence, in which the complainant/ petitionerrevisionist examined himself as CW1 and relied CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 3 of 7 upon several documents, which are Marked CW1/1 to CW1/4, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order to proceed only against accused/respondent No.2 i.e. the motherinlaw Smt. Lakshmi Venugopal.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties including Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R1 and also on perusal of the entire trial Court record and the record of the present revision petition, at the outset, since the petitionerrevisionist is assailing the impugned order in criminal revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., avoiding long academic discussion, it would be expedient to refer to the decision in State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62, in which an earlier decision on the scope and ambit of Section 397 Cr.P.C was considered in case titled as Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 and it was held as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a wellfounded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 4 of 7 exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another wellaccepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories afore stated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under Cr.P.C."
5. In view of the said proposition of law, reverting back to the instant case, prima facie it appears that accused/ respondent No.2 had procured and submitted a 'Post Graduate Degree' purportedly issued from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and in terms of report submitted by the Police on enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the said Master of Arts degree certificate from Bundelkhand University bearing No. 1767 with Roll No. 39641 has been found to be not genuine. It was on the basis of said degree, that it appears that the accused/ respondent No.2 was employed as PGT Teacher by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, I find that it has been rightly observed that there are no materials on the record to assume that accused/respondent No.3 husband of accused/respondent No.2 was aware or had any role in procurement of such fake degree. Merely because accused/respondent No. 3 is her CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 5 of 7 husband, does not lead to an inference that he was aware of such document or was a privy in procuring the same and deriving undue benefits.
6. Likewise, there is no evidence brought on the record by the complainant in presummoning evidence to suggest that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were handsingloves with the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Ld. Trial Court has rightly concluded that reliance by the accused persons / respondent Nos. 4 to 5 on such fake degree is at the best an administrative lapse, sheer negligence or want of due care but such lapse, negligence or want of due care cannot be stretched so as to assume any connivance, common intention or conspiracy so as to deliberately joining hands with the accused/ respondent No.2 in procuring her employment as PGT Teacher in the School concerned. The doubts expressed by the revisionist about their possible role or complicity is a mere surmise or conjecture and can not form sufficient material so as to proceed against the accused persons/ respondent No. 3 to 6.
7. Before parting with this revision petition, I find that the petitionerrevisionist/ complainant, who is apparently going after mother of his exwife has also filed an application dated 22.11.2021 requesting to summon judicial file in complaint case bearing CC No. 1792/2021 on the ground that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are playing fraud upon the Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere and pass any orders on the CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 6 of 7 said application and the petitionerrevisionist/complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Ld. Trial Court in bringing the facts narrated in the application to the consideration of the concerned Court for appropriate legal action.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety committed by the ld Court in passing the impugned order. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court, where the parties are directed to appear for further proceedings on the date already fixed i.e. 17.05.2022. File of revision petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.04.17 23:29:23 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) th on 18 April, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge (NDD) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CR146/2021 Harihara Ravi Iyer v. State & Ors. Page 7 of 7