Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 20.8.2008 the respondent No.2 who was a Lecturer in Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (for brevity "MANIT") had lodged an FIR that she had made some complaints on 30.5.2007 and 1.6.2007 before the SHO, Police Station AJK Bhopal, but no case was registered. Actually Dr. K.S.Pandey (applicant in M.Cr.C.No.8653/2008), Director of MANIT Bhopal was harassing the complainant on the basis of the caste. A civil case was pending before the trial Court as well as WP No.5224/2007 is pending before this Court in which stay was granted. It was also stated in the FIR that DPRC permitted the complainant to get admission for Ph.D courses, but Dr. Pandey prohibited the complainant because the complainant was of scheduled caste. Under such circumstances, Dr. Pandey got the degree of Ph.D to be cancelled on the basis of caste and though the matter is pending before the High Court and stay was granted, a report was lodged by Dr. Pandey before the Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal, which case was registered vide Crime No.155/2008 at Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal. It is surprising that in the document Annexure P-4 date 29.3.2007 was manipulated to be 31.1.2008 and thereafter police took cognizance in a fresh manner. Thereafter the FIR was sent by the complainant and her husband. It was also mentioned in another FIR that Dr. Pandey was permitting so many persons to touch his feet and he was maintaining the difference between the persons on the basis of caste. Dr. Pandey harassed the complainant on the basis of caste. Also he confused Dr. Sushil Chand Shrivastava (applicant in M.Cr.C.No.1197/2009) and obtained a note that thesis submitted by the complainant was a 90% copy of the thesis submitted by Shri J.M.Choubey, whereas the complainant got the reference from internet only and Shri Choubey also took reference from the internet. However, the thesis submitted by the complainant was cancelled, and therefore degree was also cancelled. Under such circumstances, she was terminated from her job. Ultimately, she was threatened so that she could leave her quarter. Dr. Pandey cancelled the allotment of quarter of the complainant and a fake case was also lodged for eviction before the competent authority. After due investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the concerned Magistrate and the matter was committed to the Civil Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where it is pending.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that after receiving a complaint about the thesis of the complainant, a committee was constituted by the Director, comprising of six Deans of various departments including Dr. Ashutosh Sharma, Dr. H.K.Khaira, Dr. Sushil Kumar Mittal, Dr. G. Dixit, Dr. Saroj Rangnekar and Dr. M. Kumar. They submitted a report dated 19.12.2006 that 95.5% portion of the thesis submitted by the complainant was found to be the same as it was submitted by Shri J.M.Choubey, and therefore the thesis submitted by the complainant was nothing, but the copy of thesis of someone else. Thereafter, the Dean Committee's report was considered before the Senate of MANIT and it was resolved that degree awarded to the complainant in the year 2005 shall be withdrawn. The applicants have submitted the copy of minutes of the Deans Committee dated 19.12.2006 as well as the copy of resolution of the Senate meeting dated 22.3.2007 vide notification by which it was notified that degree given to Smt. Laxmi S.S.Kumre was cancelled and it was also directed that Director of the Institution shall take disciplinary action. Thereafter show-cause notices were issued to the complainant. Since after cancellation of the degree of Ph.D., the complainant was not entitled to continue as a Lecturer, and therefore she was removed from that job. The allotment order of official quarter was also cancelled due to complainant's termination. Since she did not vacate the house, thereafter the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Authority that the complainant had illegal possession over the public property. Because of such copying of thesis, a case of cheating was prepared, and an FIR was lodged against the complainant on 1.4.2008. Thereafter the complainant had lodged an FIR against the applicants, which is nothing but a counter blast. The FIR lodged by the complainant is baseless, and therefore no prosecution can be done against the applicants on the basis of that FIR. This FIR is nothing but abuse of judicial process. Learned counsel for the applicants have placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "M.N.Ojha & others Vs. Alok Kumar Shrivastav & another", [(2009) 9 SCC 682].

9. It is a general rule that if after due investigation, charge sheet is filed, then trial Court may consider the evidence adduced before it and to pass the order as to whether charges can be framed or not. If the accused persons are aggrieved, then they can file a revision before this Court. But in case if the accused persons have some documents which are unimpeachable, then such documents can be considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Proceedings of the Senate and report of Deans Committee appear to be unimpeachable, and therefore the same may be considered in the present case. It is apparent from the minutes of the Deans Committee dated 19.6.2006, which was comprising of six Deans of various departments that none of the applicants was a member of the Deans Committee. They were the Deans of various subjects. They were experts to understand as to whether the relevant portion of the thesis submitted by the complainant was either the reference taken from internet or copy of the thesis submitted by another candidate. However, in that committee, it was resolved on 19.11.2006 that 95.5% of the thesis submitted by the complainant was copy of the thesis filed by Shri J.M.Choubey. Prima facie it cannot be said that six independent Deans were under pressure of the applicants.

10. The minutes of that committee are on record by which it would be clear that an authorized committee which was formed according to the rules had decided that thesis submitted by the complainant was nothing but a copy of another thesis. Thereafter the matter was sent to the Senate and in the meeting dated 22.3.2007 Senate found that on the basis of that thesis, no degree of M.Tech could be awarded to the complainant and it was directed that a disciplinary action and a legal action may be taken against the complainant. The entire Senate was comprising of so many members, and therefore it cannot be said that the applicants were the persons, who captured all the members for that resolution. Consequently, it appears that the complainant was removed from her job, because she lost the qualification, which was required for that job. When she got quarter on the basis of that job, then certainly she had to vacate that quarter, as she lost the job. Consequently, various actions were taken by the applicants being office bearers of the MANIT.