THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.2536 OF 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No.7874 of 2019, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7874 of 2019 in RC No.13/2009/CBI/ACB/HYD pending on the file of XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 409 and 420 read with 120-B of IPC. The petitioner herein is A.2 in the said Calendar Case.
2. Heard Sri D.V.Seetha Rama Murthy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd respondent. Despite service of notice, none appeared for 3rd respondent. Perused the record.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
i) Panineeya Sanskrit College Trust (for short, the PSCT') is represented by A.1, its Chairman and Managing Trustee.
ii) All India Council for Technical Education (for short, 'the AICTE'), New Delhi, has issued advertisement vide No.AICTE/Legal/ 11/01/2008, dated 07.11.2008 inviting applications for establishment of new institutions for Technical Programmes for the Academic Year 2009-10 and beyond.
iii) The said PSCT, represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustee-A.1 has submitted an application dated 29.12.2008 to the AICTE, Hyderabad, to start new Engineering College for the Academic Year 2009-10.
KL,J Wp_2536_2012 2
iv) The said application was forwarded to the AICTE, New Delhi and the New Delhi Office processed the said application/proposal further.
v) As per norms of the AICTE, for establishment of a new Technical Institution, the requirement of instructional area has been prescribed as follows:-
a) 2920 square meters (Carpet Area),
b) Administrative area as 535 square meters (Carpet Area),
c) Circulation and other area as 995 square meters
d) Total built up area as prescribed as 4300 square meters.
vi) The proposals submitted by the institutions for setting up new Engineering Colleges will be processed by the AICTE at different stages including physical inspection by the Expert Committee Team (for short, 'the EC Team') to ascertain readiness of the institution in terms of built up area etc., during their inspection. The AICTE will issue Letter of Approval and the Engineering Colleges commence in the Academic Session.
vii) Pursuant to the said application, dated 29.12.2008 submitted by the PSCT, represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustee/A.1, the EC team has inspected the said site proposed by the PSCT on 25. 06.2009.
viii) The petitioner herein, Honorary Secretary of the said Institution, was present and signed under declaration as applicant on behalf of the Institution. As per the information furnished by the Institution, the said EC Team mentioned the instructional Carpet Area as 2920 square meters, Administrative Carpet Area as 535 square meters and Circulation and other area as 995 square meters, in the report.
KL,J Wp_2536_2012 3
ix) The EC Team submitted its report along with annexures with recommendation and after its processing, the AICTE accorded approval to the said PSCT for setting new Engineering College who in turn started the said college and the classes were commenced since October, 2009.
x) On the basis of reliable source information, on 12.08.2009, the CBI Team consisting of CPWD Engineer etc., conducted Joint Surprise Check at the Institution, in the presence of the Trustee Member D.Ravi and drawn Joint surprise Check proceedings. The CPWD Engineer submitted the report with an opinion that there was shortage in the built up area against the requirement prescribed by the AICTE.
xi) The Joint Surprise Check team noticed that two other Institutions viz: a CBSE School and B.Ed. College were also found operating from one of the buildings of the Institution.
xii) As per AICTE norms, at the time of visit of the EC Team, no other courses are to be conducted from the approved/earmarked premises.
xiii) The B.Ed. College and CBSE School were being run in one of the old buildings in the said premises. Prior to the commencement of Engineering College in the said premises, there is Name Board with the details of CBSE school and B.Ed. college i.e. Panineeya Maha Vidyalaya Public School (CBSE) & B.Ed. College at the entrance of the gate which was repainted with the name of "Panineeya Institute of Technology and Science.
xiv) According to the prosecution, the A.1 being Chairman and Managing Trustee of the said Trust, concealed the fact of running of CBSE and B.Ed. courses in the same building meant for proposed KL,J Wp_2536_2012 4 Engineering College in the application submitted to the AICTE during November, 2008.
xv) A.1 failed to bring the said fact to the notice of the EC Team during their visit to the institution on 25.06.2009. Thus, A.1 caused the buildings shown to the Expert Committee Team and given impression that the buildings were exclusively earmarked for the proposed Engineering College.
xvi) A.1 submitted documents to the AICTE in order to obtain approval for starting Engineering College. In the said process, he also submitted false Valuation Certificate dated 22.05.2009 of M/s Srinivas and Associates in which the valuation of the Educational RCC framed structure consisting of 3 floors was mentioned as Rs.233.56 lakhs. However, Sri A.S.V.S.Srinivas, Proprietor of M/s Srinivas and Associates denied to have known A.1 nor issuing of said forged valuation certificate. Thus, A.1 by submitting the said false valuation report, cheated the AICTE, New Delhi.
xvii) Thus, A.1 and A.2, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and in order to obtain approval from the AICTE for starting new Engineering college, falsely suppressed the fact of running the said two courses in one of the buildings of the premises and obtained favorable report from the Committee. They showed an old building in which a CBSE School and B.Ed. College were running as a building meant for running the proposed Engineering College. Thus, A.1 and A.2 with dishonest and fraudulent intention suppressed the real facts and got approval by the AICTE for running Engineering College.
xviii) The EC Team has not carefully carried out the Inspection on 25.06.2009 and they are very casual in preparation of the report and they have submitted the report to the AICTE.
KL,J Wp_2536_2012 5 xix) Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitoner/A.1 has committed the offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with 120-B of IPC.
xx) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of 19 witnesses.
xxi) With the said facts, the CBI has laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein/A.2 and A.1.
4. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITONER:
i) Referring to the contents of the charge sheet, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner herein no way concerned with the said PSCT and he is not Secretary of the Trust at any point of time.
ii) The contents of the charge sheet lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein.
iii) Even then the CBI has laid the charge sheet in mechanical manner against the petitioner herein.
iv) With the said submissions, learned Senior counsel sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.7874 of 2019.
5. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT No.2:
i) A.1 has appeared before the EC Team and signed the undertaking which resulted in granting of permission to the said Institution for running Engineering College.
ii) Whether the petitioner herein is Secretary of the Institution or not is a triable issue and the petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence.
iii) Thus, there are triable issues which will be considered by the trial Court after conducting full-fledged trial. The petitioner herein, KL,J Wp_2536_2012 6 instead of facing trial, filed the present Writ Petition to quash the proceedings against him.
iv) The petitioner has alternative remedy of filing discharge application seeking to discharge him from the said Calendar Case.
v) Instead of availing said alternative remedy, he has filed the present Writ Petition.
vi) The petitioner herein and also A.1 have misrepresented with regard to specified area and valuation report. Therefore, on reliable information, the CBI has conducted surprise check with the help of CPWD, measured the area, came to conclusion that the area is less than the prescribed area by the AICTE. The said PSCT has been running a CBSE School and B.Ed. college against the norms of the AICTE and thus they have obtained permission for running an Engineering College in violation of the norms of the AICTE.
vii) There is clear suppression and misrepresentation of facts.
viii) With the said submissions, learned Special Public Prosecutor, sought to dismiss the Wit Petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
6. A perusal of paragraph No.8 of the Writ Affidavit would reveal that the petitioner herein has specifically pleaded as follows:-
"I am a doctorate in M.B.A. and as I was requested to be present at the time when the AICTE team visited the college at the time of inspection, before grant of approval, I was present. I signed the Report of the AICTE's Inspection Team. It is not on behalf of the Trust or the College either as Secretary or otherwise. I have no connection or relationship with the said Trust or the College."
Thus, the petitioner himself has categorically admitted about his presence at the time of Inspection by the AICTE and signing of the report of the AICTE's Inspection Team. Now he is claiming that he is KL,J Wp_2536_2012 7 no way concerned with the said Trust and not even Secretary. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is not an illiterate as he himself admitted that he did his Doctorate in MBA. Thus, he is highly educated, he was present at the time of Inspection and signed the report of the AICTE inspection team. Now he cannot plead ignorance.
7. However, it is relevant to note that whether the petitioner herein is a Secretary or not is a triable issue and the petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence.
8. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 19 witnesses during the course of investigation and he has collected 25 documents. On analysis of both the documentary and oral evidence only, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet. According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein is the Secretary and he was present at the time of Inspection and signed the Inspection report of the AICTE. The said fact was admitted by the petitioner himself in the writ affidavit.
9. There are serious allegations against both the petitioner herein/A.2 and A.1. They have misrepresented the AICTE Inspection Team. They have wrongly shown the valuation report and also area as per the norms of the AICTE. In the said premises, A.1 is running a CBSE school and B.Ed. College which is against the norms of the AICTE. Thus, prima facie, both the petitioner herein/A.2 and A.1, in collusion with each other, misrepresented the AICTE team and obtained permission for starting of Engineering College. Thus, the petitioner herein/A.2 now cannot claim that he is nothing to do with the said college and he is not a Secretary to the said Trust. However, it is a triable issue which is to be considered by the trial Court.
KL,J Wp_2536_2012 8
10. It is relevant to note that Section 415 of the IPC which is the explanation to Section 420 of IPC which says that "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, 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".
11. In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he, in collusion with A.1, induced the Inspection Team of the AICTE, deceived them to do a particular thing by misrepresenting with regard to the specified area and suppressed the fact of running a CBSE school and B.Ed. college in the very same premises. Thus, with the said inducement, the Inspection team submitted their report which resulted in granting permission to the said Institution for running Engineering College. Thus, the petitioner herein, in collusion with A.1, induced the Inspection Team to do which they were not to do and thus they have deceived the Inspection Team.
12. In view of the said discussion, the petitioner herein cannot now contend that the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged against him.
13. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Wp_2536_2012 9 where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
14. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors2, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 2 AIR 2021 SC 931, KL,J Wp_2536_2012 10 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
15. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the above said discussion, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, there are several triable issues. This Court while hearing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot consider the defences which are supposed to be taken by the petitioner during the trial before the trial Court as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein/A.2 in C.C.No.7874 of 2019 in RC No.13/2009/CBI/ACB/HYD pending on the file of XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:14.09.2021.
vvr