Madras High Court
Shaalini vs The State Represented By on 30 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5253 & 5254 of 2017
1.Shaalini
2.Sarangapani
3.Vandana ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
G-1 Police Station (West)
Ooty.
2.D.Prithiviraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.143 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ooty, and quash the same.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.P.R.Raman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Seethapathy
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report
in C.C.No.143 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ooty, filed for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused are running an
Educational Foundation in the name of Merit International Education
Foundation. The said Foundation has several institutions, including a
College, namely, Merit International Institute of Technology at Ooty and
they offer various courses. The accused, by giving promise that the College
is affiliated to Anna University, Chennai, have lured the students to join their
College. Believing the same, the de facto complainant joined B.E. Course in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
the said College and also completed his degree. After completing the B.E.
Course, the College has not given any Certificate of Anna University,
whereas, a certificate in the name of American International University has
been issued and when the same was produced before the Anna University, it
was informed that the said College functioning at Ooty is not all affiliated to
Anna University and the Certificate issued by the said College will not be
useful anywhere in India. The case of the de facto complainant is that, due
to the dishonest promise and deception played initially by the accused, the
de facto complainant had joined the College and wasted money, time and
education. Hence, the accused are liable to be prosecuted. The prosecution
has filed final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 420
and 120B IPC.
3.A1 is the Director of the Educational Foundation, A2 is the Dean of
the Educational Foundation and A3 is the Executive Director of the Merit
Foundation. The petitioners before this Court are A3 to A5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
4.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the materials collected by the prosecution would not
constitute any offence of cheating as against the petitioners herein/A3 to A5
and none of the witnesses have spoken anything about the present
petitioners and there are no materials available on prosecution side to show
that there was false promise or deception played by the accused from the
very inception to lure the students to join the course. The learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the students are aware of the fact that the
Institution is having foreign tie-up and it had not published in their
advertisement or prospectus that their Institution is recognized or affiliated
to Anna University. It is the further contention of the learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioner's Institution had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Alagappa University, Karaikudi, to facilitate the
students to get an additional qualification, and accordingly, the students
were also given an opportunity to do their basic degree (UGC) for three
years simultaneously through Alagappa University, Karaikudi, for which,
the petitioner's Institution was authorized to conduct the classes and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
examination as per the instructions of the Alagappa University. Merely
because the de facto complainant and few other students did not get any job
after completion of their studies, they have lodged a false complaint against
the petitioner's Institution. Further, in the entire materials collected by the
prosecution, there are no ingredients found to attract the offences under
Sections 420 and 120B IPC. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed.
5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing
for the 1st respondent Police, submitted that the prosecution has collected
various materials and examined several witnesses and collected various
documents. Whether or not the materials collected by the prosecution would
attract the offence or whether they are sufficient to prove the offence cannot
be looked into at this stage and it has to be seen only at the time of trial.
Therefore, the question of quashing of final report does not arise at all.
6.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
would contend that the entire prosecution cannot be quashed at this stage. It
is the contention of the learned counsel that, only on the false promise and
deception played by the Educational Institution, poor students have joined
the College under the belief that the College got affiliated to the Anna
University. Only after completion of studies, it came to light that no such
affiliation is ever obtained and the students were made to believe such false
representation of the College authorities, which is clearly a case of cheating.
Therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot make a roving enquiry and cannot
quash the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
7.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions
and also perused the entire materials available on record.
8.It is well settled law that, whether or not the materials unearthed by
the prosecution would prove the allegations made against the accused,
cannot be decided by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The allegations leveled against the accused are required to be
proved or disproved before the Court of Law. The general proposition that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
the materials collected would not constitute any offence and therefore, entire
final report can be quashed, cannot be applied mechanically in all cases.
Every case has to be seen on its own facts and circumstances.
9.The main crux of the prosecution case is that the students were
lured to join the courses in the petitioner's Institution under the belief that
the College got affiliated to Anna University, however, later, the same was
found to be false. It is relevant to note that the prosecution have examined
as many as 25 witnesses and also have collected several documents.
Whether the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
will make out the case or not cannot be decided at this stage. Whether or
not any deception has been played by the present petitioners/A3 to A5 from
the inception, is a matter of evidence. Moreover, whether the present
petitioners/A3 to A5 had any role directly in deceiving the students or not is
also to be seen only at the time of trial. Merely because some ingredients are
lacking in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
same itself is not sufficient to infer that the prosecution would always fail.
There may be situation(s) during the course of trial, where new facts may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
emerge, or further investigation also may be required in certain aspects, or
the Court may also summon any witness or call for any documents, though
not examined or not collected by the prosecution, by exercising powers
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court cannot conduct a roving
enquiry at this stage itself and decide the matter.
10.In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Singh Jodan and
another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised where
allegations are required to be proved in the Court of Law and has also held
that the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120B
IPC was made out or not, cannot be decided by the High Court at pre-trial
stage.
11.In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3
SCC 317, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being wholly inadmissible in evidence,
cannot be taken into consideration by the High Courts while adjudicating a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12.Further, in Priti Saraf and another v. State of NCT of Delhi and
another reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 206, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that the grounds raised by the accused can be their defence during
the course of trial and cannot be taken by the High Court to quash the
criminal proceedings.
13.Therefore, considering the gravity of the charges and in the light of
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot decide whether or
not the offence has been made out, from the materials collected by the
prosecution including the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial
stage, nor can it decide the complicity of the present petitioners/A3 to A5
with the charges framed against them. All these aspects have to be seen
only in the trial and not at this stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
quash the criminal proceedings.
14.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioners. Considering the submission of the learned
counsel and also the nature of the offence, the personal appearance of the
petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of
copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
passing of judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial
Court.
16.The trial Court shall proceed with the trial and dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible, on its own merits and in accordance
with law.
30.11.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Ooty.
2.The Inspector of Police,
G-1 Police Station (West),
Ooty.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
mkn
Crl.O.P.No.7256 of 2017
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
