Telangana High Court
Gangolla Govardhan Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 February, 2022
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.39959 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to issue order or
direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling
for records pertaining to FIR No.1288 of 2016 on the file of LB Nagar
Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District
and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner No.1 filed an affidavit in support of the
petition submitting that the respondent No.4 lodged a complaint
against them stating that he secured 73rd rank in A.P. Lawcet, 2011
and was allotted a seat under Convener Quota in Mahatma Gandhi
Law College and studied B.A., LL.B. (5 YDC) during the academic
years 2011-2016 duly paying the requisite fee collected by the college.
On 6-10-2016, he discovered that the Secretary, Principal and
Computer Operator of Mahatma Gandhi Law College in collusion
with each other fraudulently collected an excess amount of Rs.4,500/-
for each academic year on the pretext of tuition fee and thus collected
a total amount of Rs.22,500/- without any authorization from
competent authorities i.e. UGC, State Council for Higher Education,
Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad etc. He further
submitted that the said fee was collected only from him on the ground
of his social status i.e. Scheduled Caste attracting the provisions of
Dr.GRR,J
IPC as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act. On 6-10-2016, he
got issued a legal notice and as there is no response from them, lodged
the report.
3. The petitioner further submitted that the allegations leveled
by respondent No.4 were false and not correct, the college had never
collected any extra amount under any head, the amounts collected by
college management was purely as per the Government GO's and
based on the guidelines issued by the University authorities and State
Council for Higher Education. The ingredients of Section 420, 120B
IPC and the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act were not applicable as per
the contents of the complaint. The respondent No.4 during the course
of his study had never questioned the management about collection of
fee. The college management had issued valid receipts for the
amounts collected. The respondent No.4 was the erstwhile employee
of the Police Department, as such the respondent Nos2 and 3 illegally
and highhandedly registered FIR against the petitioners to tarnish the
image of the institution, the very registration of FIR and continuation
of proceedings was nothing but an abuse of process of law and prayed
to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1288 of 2016 registered against
them on the file of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader for Home.
Dr.GRR,J
5. There is no representation for respondent No.4/de facto
complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by orders in
Crl.P. No.8227 of 2017 decided on 22-02-2019 and further contended
that as per G.O. Ms. No.216 dated 11-9-2008, the college was entitled
to collect special fee and filed said GO.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Home reported to
decide the petition on merits.
8. Perused the record and the orders of this court in Crl.P.
No.8227 of 2017 dated 20-02-2019. The said orders were also arising
out of a similar case filed by the erstwhile student of Mahatma Gandhi
Law College against the Secretary cum Correspondent, Principal and
Computer Operator for the offences under Sections 120B, 420 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2015 in Cr.No.1458 of
2016 of L.B. Nagar Police Station dated 30-12-2016. This Court
considering the judgment of the constitutional bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [2015 (4) SCC 609] held
that when the institution was not made as a party, the officials could
not be held responsible, and allowed the petition.
9. Considering that the facts of this case are also similar to the
above case and the said ratio is also applicable to the present factual
Dr.GRR,J
scenario, it is considered fit to allow the writ petition on the same
grounds.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.1288 of 2016 on the file
of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga
Reddy District. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
February 18, 2022
KTL
