Rajasthan High Court
Prof. (Dr.) Amarika Singh S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
(1 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4740/2022
Prof. (Dr.) Amarika Singh S/o Shri Late Ram Deni Singh, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o 231, Janaki Vihar Colony, 60 Ft. Road,
Lucknow, U.P.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG/Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Singh
Shekhawat
Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA cum AAG
Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment reserved on : 29/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022
1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of FIR No. 106/2022
registered with Ashok Nagar Police Station in the city of Jaipur for
offences under Section 166, 167, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B
IPC. The prayer is on the ground that the FIR does not disclose
ingredients of a cognizable offence rather has been instituted due
to political and departmental rivalries.
2. The backdrop of the FIR is that a proposal came to the State
Government on 12.3.2021 for establishing a private University
named as Gurukul University at Sikar in the State of Rajasthan.
The proposal was from trustee of Gurukul Educational Society. The
said proposal contained the details of availability of requirements
with specific documents of land in possession of Gurukul
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM)
(2 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
Educational society. The State Government has already issued
executive directions dated 26.7.2007 giving guidelines for
establishment of private universities. Under guideline No. (4), the
State Government on receipt of the proposal and the project
report for establishment of a university shall constitute a
committee consisting of such members as may be specified by it
to examine the proposal and the project. Accordingly, the State
Government constituted a committee under the chairmanship of
Professor I.V. Trivedi, Vice Chancellor, Govind Guru Tribal
University. The aforesaid committee submitted its report dated
19.6.2021. Considering the report of the committee, the State
issued letters of intent to Gurukul Shikshan Sanshtan on 2.7.2021
with specific information required to be furnished by the Gurukul
Shikhshan Sansthan. Accordingly, the Gurukul Shishan Sansthan
submitted a report on 15.9.2021. Thereafter in accordance to
guideline (11) on receiving the compliance report, the State
Government constituted another committee, headed by the
petitioner and other members to verify the compliance report. The
order of the State Government dated 29.9.2021 contains
specification of task to be performed by the new committee. The
petitioner has stated in para 8 of the petition as follows:
"8. ... ... ... After which the petitioner along with the
committee members, visited the campus and the
buildings at the site and physically verified, the
facilities at the campus such as the Academic Block,
Administrative Block, Library, Laboratories,
Classrooms, Seminar Hall, Playgrounds, Sports
Facilities, Hostel etc."
3. On presentation of the report by the committee headed by
the petitioner, a bill was introduced in the Vidhan Sabha after
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM)
(3 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
compliance of the required procedure for establishment of a
private University namely Gurukul University in the State. The
discussion on the bill was held on 22.3.2022. During discussion,
some alarming facts were brought to the notice of the house,
especially non-availability of land or building at the proposed place
of the university. Thereafter, State Government constituted an
enquiry committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
The committee after giving opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, submitted report dated 1.4.2022. The enquiry
committee reported that the committee headed by the petitioner
colluded with the Gurukul Educational Institution and just to give
wrongful gain to the University, presented a false verification
report to the State Government. The committee of the petitioner
had reported that there is one chunk of land measuring 80.31
acres possessed by the Gurukul. The committee headed by the
petitioner misrepresented that the said agricultural land was
already converted for institutional and health services purpose. In
fact, such conversion was effected on 25.11.2021. The committee
headed by the petitioner wrongly submitted that building of the
University is already complete with all required faculties. In fact,
the so called 80.31 acres of land was divided into two pieces and
situated in two different Tehsils and the distance between the two
places was 28 Kms. In fact, Gurukul Educational Society had only
eight acres of land which was much less than the required for
opening and running a University. Before a small building of the
Gurukul Educational Society, the petitioner and other members of
the Committee got photographs to substantiate that the society
had sufficient building to run a university. The committee has
wrongly reported that buildings in different blocks were there to
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM)
(4 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
cater the need of the University as administrative block, academic
block. etc. etc. Thus the committee headed by the petitioner
prepared a false document. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was
lodged against the petitioner and other members of the committee
as well as person involved in placing proposal for the private
university.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Hora contends
that the petitioner is an academician of the highest order and has
surrendered his life to uplift the education. The petitioner held
different dignified posts in different institutions and at the relevant
time was Vice Chancellor of Mohanlal Sukhadia University,
Udaipur. A bare perusal of the FIR may make out a case of some
negligence on the part of the committee which is cognizable for
departmental action for negligence and in pursuance of a
departmental proceedings, the petitioner and other members have
already been put under suspension on different dates. Moreover,
the FIR does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence,
hence criminal proceeding is abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on these cases:
(1) Kalusing Dalesing Rajput Vs. The State of Maharashtra;
Manu/MH/0122/1969
(2) Sardar Jaswant Singh Vs. the State; AIR 1966 J & K 96.
(3) Ramesh Chand Bahree Vs. Om Prakash & Anr.,
MANU/RH/0258/1976
(4) State of Gujarat Vs. Sh. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi
(1972) 2 SCC 392;
(5) Legal Remembrance Vs. Manmatha Bhushan Chatterjee (1924)
ILR 51 Cal. 250
(6) Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors.,
(2007) 12 SCC 1
(7) Hari Sao & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, 1969 (3) SCC 107
(8) Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., 1970 (2) SCC 740
(9) Matilal Chakrabarti Vs. the King 1949 SCC Online Cal 230
(10) Ripudaman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C. No.
167/2018, decided on 1.2.2018
(11) Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCC 751
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM)
(5 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
(12) H.L. Rangaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, Cr. Pet. No.
11271/2013 decided on 11.2.2015
(13) Jitendra Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appl. No. 06344/2016
decided on 30.7.2018
(14) Smt. Rameshwari Devi Vs. State & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet.
No. 3162/2015 decided on 16.11.2017
(15) Raj Gopal Acharjya Goswami Vs. Upendra Acharjya Goswami,
1926 SCC Online Pat 82
(16) T.R. Arya & ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1986 SCC P & H 7
(17) Prithvi Singh Vs. State of Raj. & ors., MANU/RH/0324/2016
(18) Madha Ram Vs. State of Raj., 2017 SCC OnLine Raj.1045
(19) Rekha Bano Vs. State of Raj., S.B. Cr. Misc. pet. No.
1561/2019, decided on 7.3.2019
(20) Smt. Rameshwari Devi Vs. State & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet.
No. 3162/2015, decided on 16.11.2017
(21) Dhapli & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No.
5506/2020 decided on 29.11.2021
(21) R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of T.N. & ors.,
(1994) 6 SCC 632.
5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate cum Additional
Advocate General contends that it is not disputed that report
submitted by the committee headed by the petitioner was
factually a false report. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings
is no bar for criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cognizable
offence are disclosed in the FIR which is in fact disclosed.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.
7. This Court is not inclined to open its mind on each and every
offence alleged in the FIR which may prejudice the pending
investigation or future course of trial if the occasion so arises.
However, for the purpose of deciding whether the impugned FIR
requires to be investigated, the Court has examined the
ingredients of offences under Section 167 and 415 IPC which are
strongly agitated by the parties whether they are made out or not.
Offence under Section 167 IPC, is cognizable offence. The
provision reads as follows:
"167. Public servant framing an incorrect
document with intent to cause injury.--Whoever,
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 11:15:58 PM)
(6 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
being a public servant, and being, as 1[such
public servant, charged with the preparation or
translation of any document or electronic record,
frames, prepares or translates that document or
electronic record] in a manner which he knows or
believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to
cause or knowing it to be likely that he may
thereby cause injury to any person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only those
public servants can be prosecuted under Section 167 IPC who
were charged with the preparation of any document in the
capacity of such public servant. It is not the official business of a
Vice Chancellor to prepare a document as asked by the State
Government, therefore, the report submitted by the petitioner
does not come within the mischief of aforesaid provision as this
was an act beyond his official responsibility.
9. The term public servant is defined in Section 21 of the Indian
Penal Code and the petitioner comes under item No. `sixth' which
are reproduced below:
"21.The words "public servant" denote a person
falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter
following, namely:
......
......
(vi)Every arbitrator or other person to whom
any cause or matter has been referred for
decision or report by any Court of Justice, or
by any other competent public authority;
10. In the case on hand, the State Government is a public
authority competent under the executive instructions as referred
above to constitute a committee to perform the referred task.
There is no dispute that the executive instructions have force of
law unless they are contrary to the Acts or Rules prevailing in the
(7 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
field. Evidently, role of the petitioner in this case was of "other
person" to whom any matter has been referred for report by any
other competent public authority. The petitioner is a public servant
coming within the mischief of Section 167 IPC. There is prima
facie material that the petitioner along with others prepared a
document (report herein) knowingly to be incorrect. When
knowingly incorrect information was supplied, the intention would
be evident that it was likely to cause injury to any person.
For the purpose of consideration of this petition for quashing
of FIR, it is held that a prima facie offence under Section 167 IPC
is made out against the petitioner. The offence alleged is
cognizable one, hence the investigation cannot be scuttled at the
threshold.
11. Section 415 IPC defines the word `cheating' and is in two
parts:-
(a) 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,
(b) 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".
12. There is no dispute that the first part is not applicable in the
facts of this case nor for fulfilling the requirement of second part,
fraudulent and dishonest inducement is required. The requirement
of part (b) is the intentional inducement to the person deceived to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived. The petitioner herein intentionally
submitted a report in favour of Gurukul knowing the fact well that
(8 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
the report is not factually correct and the State Government had
moved the matter ahead relying on the report of the petitioner. If
the State Government would have been correctly informed about
the factual situation, the State Government must have omitted to
move forward to grant permission for establishment of private
university. Further requirement is that act or omission causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property. Again, there is no dispute that the act of
the petitioner was not likely to cause damage to the body, mind
and property of the State Government.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that
the "State" is a juristic person. An inanimate object cannot be
cheated or bear reputation, therefore, offence under Section 420
IPC is not made out. Reliance has been placed on a Division
Bench judgment of calcutta High Court in Legal Remembrance
(supra).
14. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the
aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court did not say that
the railway company has no 'reputation' rather noticed that the
damage to the reputation was remote one and not direct,
therefore, offence under Section 415 would not be applicable.
15. In Legal Remembrance (supra), the employees of the railway
company in collusion with B.P. Singh Colliery, allotted more railway
wagons for carrying coals than was permissible as per standing
decision taken by the transport officer of the railway. The relevant
part of the observation is being reproduced below:
"A corporation cannot well suffer damage in
mind or body and the charge maintains that the
Railway Company suffered damage not in
(9 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
property but in reputation. I will concede that an
incorporated Company may have a reputation
for the good conduct of the business or
undertaking of the Company and that the
Company's reputation may be quite distinct from
that of any of its officers, however highly placed.
Under the definition, however, it is clearly not
sufficient to say merely that the malpractices of
the two checkers brought or tended to bring the
administration of the Company into discredit.
The question is whether the allotment of the
excess wagons to one colliery caused or was
likely to cause, within the meaning of the
definition, damage to the Company in
reputation. It was argued very plausibly for the
Crown that under the Indian Railways Act,
1890, Section 42(2), "a Railway Administration
shall not make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference to, or in favour of, any
particular person", that the East Indian Railway
Company sets great store on its reputation for
impartiality and that this reputation was affected
or endangered by the allotment of the wagons. I
will not say positively that the Railway Company
suffered no damage to its reputation but in view
of the authorities I am disposed to conclude that
this damage was too remote. It appears to me
that the damage here complained of is indirect
and ulterior rather than the direct natural or
probable consequence of the action which the
Company was deceived into taking. The direct
consequence of one colliery getting more than
their fair share of wagons is that other collieries
must suffer the disadvantage of getting less than
their fair share. If it be said that a suit might
have been brought against the Company for
damages for undue preference, such a possibility
under Section 415 would come under the head of
damage or likelihood of damage to property and
not of damage to reputation. A charge alleging
damage or likelihood of damage to property
would, I think, have been easier to support:
than the charge framed. For in my opinion in a
case of the present description it is rather in the
region of property than in that of mind and
reputation that the natural and probable
consequences should be looked for. "
16. The words reputation has been defined in the Black's law
dictionary as "the estimate in which a person is held by others". In
legal glossary 1988 page 291 "reputation is the common or
(10 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
general estimate of a person with respect to character or other
qualities".
17. In a democratic set up, the elected Government has to face
the people for its acts and omissions, therefore, it cannot be
argued that the State has no reputation. The deeds and misdeeds
of the State Government is well appreciated and translated into
action by the people in general at the time of election of the
Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that only for the reason
that the State is an inanimate body, it has no reputation. No
Government would like to earn disrepute. It can be well imagined
what would have happened if the bill would have been passed and
act would have come into force for establishment of Gurukul
Private University and thereafter, the public would have raised the
voice that neither there is land for the University nor there is
building for the University and a fake University has been granted
such permission by the State Government. Then only the
disrepute of the State Government would have surfaced.
Therefore, evidently a case under second part of the definition of
Section 415 IPC is made out. The committee of the petitioner
knowingly and intentionally by submitting a factually wrong report
persuaded the State Government to pass an Act for establishment
of private University which the State Government would not have
done in the event of submission of correct factual reports
regarding non availability of land and building for the university.
Second part of the definition of Section 415 IPC that the act of
inducement is likely to cause damage to the reputation of the
State Government is also prima facie disclosed in the FIR.
Nothing has been brought on the record to substantiate that
the impugned FIR was result of any political reason or
(11 of 11) [CRLMP-4740/2022]
departmental rivalry because no departmental person is involved
in the registration of the FIR, rather machinery of the State has
instituted the FIR.
18. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not cover the field in the facts and circumstances
of this case stated above. The cases were decided in quite
different factual scenario of the individual cases.
19. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this
petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. It is made clear that
nothing observed hereinabove shall prejudice the case of any of
the parties in future proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/61
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
