Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

S. P. Gautam v. State Of M. P.

2002-02-18

DIPAK MISRA

body2002
ORDER : Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the charge sheet contained in Annexure P-17-A filed by the investigating agency and further to issue of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate appropriate departmental action against the Officer-in-charge, Police Station Tikaria in the Tehsil of Narayanganj, District Mandla for falsely implicating the petitioner in the crime in question and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts as have been exposited are that the petitioner is a professor of Bio-Science in the Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur. He was appointed as Rector in the said University in the year 1998. The petitioner did his Ph.D. in Bio Science from the Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidhalaya and Post Doctoral Research from the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institution of Technology, Pennosylvania State University and Glbenkian Institution of Science Portugal. He visited many foreign countries like England, Canada, Italy, Spain and several other European countries in connection with his research work and was awarded Post Doctoral Research Fellowship by the Government of India. He has attended many international conference in connection with his study. 3. According to the writ petitioner there is a Bhoj Mukta Vishwavidyalaya Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (in short 'Bhoj University). This is an open university. There are study centres opened by the Bhoj University at the places where there is no college facility. There are seven regions, namely, Rewa, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Raipur, Gwalior, Bilaspur and Indore. In Jabalpur region there are 47 centres situated at various places. To have better control over these centres in all the seven Regions, Regional Directors are appointed, some on full time basis and some on part time basis. The petitioner was appointed as a Regional Director on part time basis on 15-5-1998 and continued to hold the said post up to 19-10-2000. There were three Directors, out of whom two were full time and one part time. The Office of the Director comprised of office assistant, computer operators, tabulators and two peons. The Bhoj University awards degrees upto B. A. and B.Sc. level at the study centres. There were three Directors, out of whom two were full time and one part time. The Office of the Director comprised of office assistant, computer operators, tabulators and two peons. The Bhoj University awards degrees upto B. A. and B.Sc. level at the study centres. The students seek admission there and the University makes the necessary books available for the students and for about a month or two it also makes arrangement for giving condensed teaching through school teachers as also post graduates. There is no regular teaching at the study centres and counselling or the condensed teaching takes place at the beginning of the session for about a month and then a month or two before the commencement of the annual examination. It is putforth in the petition that the Regional Director is only a co-ordinator between the study centres and the Bhoj University. At the centre there is a centre incharge who is appointed on part time basis from the local schools. Whenever admissions are given in any class, the centre incharge sends the necessary forms along with the fee and other details to the Bhoj University through the Regional Office. At the time of annual examination the University sends the examination forms to the centre through the Regional Director. The centre incharge gets the examination forms filled up by the students and collects the fee and sent to the university through the Regional Director. Examinations are conducted by the Centre Incharge and he collects the answer books and sent them to Regional Office. It is putforth in the petition that the Director takes care of valuation of answer books, preparation of tabulation sheets in relation to marks, preparation of floppy in the computer and send the floppy and hardprint to the Bhoj University for scrutiny and declaration of the result. The petitioner is a part time Regional Director and he is only a supervisor over the staff working in the regional office. He is not personally involved either in the process of valuation of the answer books or preparation of the tabulation of the marks. He is also not concerned in the preparation of the floppy of the computer. All this work is done by the office of the Deputy Director and other staff who are accountable. He is not personally involved either in the process of valuation of the answer books or preparation of the tabulation of the marks. He is also not concerned in the preparation of the floppy of the computer. All this work is done by the office of the Deputy Director and other staff who are accountable. On through scrutiny of the papers comprised of admission forms, examination forms and the tabulation sheets, the University declares the results. The role of the Regional Director is only to co-ordinate between the centres and the University. He neither grants admission nor does he get the examination forms filled up from the students and he has no role in conducting the examination. In the valuation process and preparation of tabulation, the office of the Regional Director is not involved. If a wrong admission is given or an examination form is filled up by student who is not entitled to get admission or some one else who had not filled up the form or some one else who had filled up form does not appear in the examination, the Regional Director is not concerned. It is entirely for the study centre incharge to look into all these aspects and keep the record and if there is any anomaly anywhere he has to report the same to the Bhoj University. 4. The case putforth in the writ petition is that one Ku. Meena Chakravorty sought admission in B. A. -I at the study centre at Narayanganj in July 1997. She appeared in the examination in the year 1998. However, her result was not declared and when she visited to the centre incharge, it was told to her that she was passed in the first division but no marks sheet was given to her. The said Meena Chakravorti went to the centre incharge time and again and the centre incharge Mr. A. B. Agnihotri avoided to give her marks sheet. Ku. Meena Chakravorty deposited the requisite admission fees for the B. A. IInd year. When the went to deposit the examination fee for the B. A. -II examination, Mr. Agnihotri told her that she would not be permitted to take the B. A. IInd year examination without the marks sheet of the earlier examination. On that juncture when the young girl insisted for the mark sheet the centre incharge returned his admission fee. When the went to deposit the examination fee for the B. A. -II examination, Mr. Agnihotri told her that she would not be permitted to take the B. A. IInd year examination without the marks sheet of the earlier examination. On that juncture when the young girl insisted for the mark sheet the centre incharge returned his admission fee. At that stage she had made a complaint to the Tehsildar, Narayanganj against the centre incharge about the manner in which he wasted her two years. It has been setforth in the writ petition that the result of Ku. Meena Chakravaty was not declared and that of one Rakesh Sahu was declared and the registration number allotted to Ku. Meena Chakravorty was given to one Rakesh Sahu and he was declared to have passed. According to the petitioner when the complaint was made by Ku. Meena Chakravorty to the centre incharge Mr. A. G. Agnihotri he ought to have enquired into the matter immediately by reporting the same to the petitioner or to the University directly but he chose not to do so. The Naib Tehsildar, as pleaded, wrote a letter on 26-7-2000 to the police station, Tikaria for registration of a crime against the centre incharge for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC'). The Police officer registered the offence and started the investigation. Investigating agency visited the office of the petitioner and recorded the statement of Deputy Director, Dr. Sarvada Nand Dubey who gave the statement to the police that Ku. Meena Chakravoty appeared in the B. A. -I in the year 1997-1998 and passed in second division. The statement of said Mr. Dubey has been brought on record as Annexure P-3. The investigating agency also interrogated the computer operator Ku. Vijita Tiwari and recorded her statement. She also stated that Ku. Meena Chakravoty has passed B. A.-I and the details of her examination are stored in the computer. The police came to the petitioner on 25-8-2000 and required to seize the floppy. The petitioner stated all the relevant documents have been sent to the Bhoj University and the investigating agency could contract the University for the said purpose. At that stage the Station House Officer wrote a letter directing the petitioner to come with all the documents to the Police Station within five days. The petitioner stated all the relevant documents have been sent to the Bhoj University and the investigating agency could contract the University for the said purpose. At that stage the Station House Officer wrote a letter directing the petitioner to come with all the documents to the Police Station within five days. The petitioner wrote back that as per the directions of the Bhoj University all the documents had already been sent to the University concerned. The concerned investigating officer went to Bhoj University and recorded the statement of the Registrar and officer on special duty. The Registrar gave the statement that floppy containing the roll number of Ku. Meena Chakravorty had been sent by the petitioner to the University. Officer on special duty gave the similar statement. The local teachers who had been examined had not stated anything about the petitioner. The said documents have been brought on record as Annexure P-7 to P-13. 5. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a Professor and he acted as Rector for a period of two years in Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur and was only appointed an Honorary Regional Director (part time) and he was not receiving any remuneration for working in the said post except getting the conveyance allowance. He had no knowledge about Ku. Meena Chakravorty and the said Rakesh Sahu. However, Mr. A. B. Agnihotri, centre incharge used to come from time to time to report the matter or submit any document for onward transmission in the office. It is putforth that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the declaration of the result of Rakesh Sahu instead of Ku. Meena Chakravorty. According to the writ petitioner all the requisite forms right from the admission till the examination pertaining to Ku. Meena Chakravorti might have been forwarded by the Centre Incharge through the then Regional Director of the University prior to the joining of the petitioner. He claims that he had nothing to do with the entire episode and he only came into the picture when the examination was to commence i.e. 31-5-1998. But, when the matter was enquired into by the investigating agency the petitioner checked and found that the computer floppy and hard print of the tabulation sheet had already been sent to Bhoj University on 6-8-2000. A copy of dispatch register has been brought on record as Annexure -P-14. But, when the matter was enquired into by the investigating agency the petitioner checked and found that the computer floppy and hard print of the tabulation sheet had already been sent to Bhoj University on 6-8-2000. A copy of dispatch register has been brought on record as Annexure -P-14. The University also declared the result of Ku. Meena Chakravorty on 8-12-2000 on the basis of answer books and the original record available at the Regional Office. A copy of the certificate issued by the Present Regional Director dated 26-12-2000 has been brought on record as Annexure-P-15. It is also urged in the petition that the allegation against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is the blank admission cards were issued to Narayanganj Centre which facilitated issuance of admission card in favour of Rakesh Sahu floppy of the result which contained Ku. Meena's result was not sent by the petitioner to the University which amounts to forgery; and that he abated in the offence of forgery and entered into the conspiracy of the Centre Incharge, Shri A. B. Agnihotri. It is also putforth if the allegations in the chargesheet are scrutinized no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. To substantiate the same it is averred that his predecessor has concluded all the formalities by the time the petitioner had takenover the charge and, therefore, the petitioner had nothing more to do in that regard. It is setforth that there is no evidence or material on record that the petitioner dispacthced the blank admissions cards to the centres. On the contrary, the University sends the admission cards through the Regional Office to the Centres and separate envelopes containing examination forms and examination papers are sent in closed envelopes. Floppy of the tabulation sheet was already sent on 6-8-2000 by the petitioner to the University of which the entries in the dispatch register has been made and that goes a long way to show that the petitioner was not at fault. It is also putforth that no record was ever destroyed and on that basis the University declared the result of Ku. Meena Chakravorty in August, 2000. It is also putforth that no record was ever destroyed and on that basis the University declared the result of Ku. Meena Chakravorty in August, 2000. It is also putforth that the petitioner has been roped in the case because the investigating officer had already registered the crime against the petitioner without verifying from the office whether the answer books were available in the office of the petitioner or not. He made an application on 7-12-2000 demanding original answer books of Ku. Meena Chakravorty which ought to have been done before registering the crime against the petitioner. The original answer books were in the Regional Office and they were made available to the University by the successor of the petitioner and on the basis of the same answer books the University declared the result. A reference has been made to the order passed in M. Cr. C. No. 5188/2000 wherein this Court directed the Registrar of the University to publish the result of Ku. Meena Chakravorty within 15 days and the result was accordingly declared. It is setforth that all these would go to show that there was no manipulation of any sort by the petitioner himself or anyone in the office. It is also putforth that the petitioner has been roped in for some reason which is incomprehensible and material on record do not any way indicate what role has been played by the petitioner in declaring the result of Rakesh Sahu instead of Ku. Meena Chakravorty. The print out given to the Police Officer was in relation to Ku. Meena Chakravorty and the name of Rakesh Sahu was nowhere mentioned. It is averred that had the University authorities been vigilant, they could have very easily detected the mistake and corrected the record. It is pleaded in the petition that the allegations made in the FIR and other material brought on record do not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner but he is being harassed as the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Magistrate at Niwas in the district of Mandla and filing of such charge-sheet has entailed in his suspension by the Vice-Chancellor. In this factual backdrop a prayer has been made for quashing of the chargesheet. 6. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has given contradictory pleadings in the writ petition itself. In this factual backdrop a prayer has been made for quashing of the chargesheet. 6. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has given contradictory pleadings in the writ petition itself. A reference has been made to certain aspects in the writ petition to show that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner is not at all involved in the process. It is putforth that the petitioner had issued the marksheet. It is also highlighted that the present case is not the one where it can be stated with definiteness that the petitioner had no role to play in the crime in question. It is also putforth that the petitioner had signed the marksheet issued in favour of said Rakesh Sahu. A reference has been made to the statement of Registrar of Bhoj University to highlight the complicity of the petitioner in the crime in question. 7. I have heard Mr. V. S. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate. It is submitted by Mr. Shroti that even if the allegations are accepted in totality they do not constitute the alleged offences. It is his submission that the investigating officer has roped the petitioner in out of sheer malice and the petitioner has become a victim of circumstances. It is also urged by him that the ingredients of offence are not satisfied and, therefore, the entire proceeding as far as petitioner is concerned should be quashed. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. State of M. P. and others, 2000 (3) MPHT 172 and Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 4 SCC 168 . 8. Mr. S. K. Yadava, learned Government Advocate, per contra, has submitted that if the documents brought on record do clearly show that petitioner had a role to pay and his role at this juncture cannot be scanned and scrutinized to confer the benefit of innocence. It is urged by him that this is not a case where it can be stated that the material brought on record do not disclose no offence and the petitioner had no role to play. 9. It is urged by him that this is not a case where it can be stated that the material brought on record do not disclose no offence and the petitioner had no role to play. 9. Before I deal with the factual scenario of the case at hand, it is appsoite to notice a few decisions. In the case of R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 806 , the Apex Court summerised certain categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SC 604 their Lordships held as under :- "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law ununciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR on complaint are to absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and /or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. B. R. Bajaj, AIR 1994 SC 1256 , expressed the view that inherent powers of the High Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the case of R. D. Bajaj vs. K. P. S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 , their Lordships ruled that the Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations. In the case of Mushtaq Ahmad vs. Mohd. Habibur Rehman, (1996) 7 SCC 440 , the Apex Court observed that it is not appropriate to consider the rival version and enter into a debate for the purpose of accepting which version is true. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Rajendra, (1996) 8 SCC 164 , it has been categorically expressed that inherent power should be very sparingly and cautiously used. Recently, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa, 2002 AIR SCW 286, a three Judge Bench in paragraph 9 has held as under :- "9. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Rajendra, (1996) 8 SCC 164 , it has been categorically expressed that inherent power should be very sparingly and cautiously used. Recently, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa, 2002 AIR SCW 286, a three Judge Bench in paragraph 9 has held as under :- "9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janta Dal etc. vs. H. S. Chowdhary and others, etc., AIR 1993 SC 892 ; Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1964 SC 1 . It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in a complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial and to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, AIR 1990 SC 494 ; State of Bihar and another vs. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S. and another, 1992 Supp1. (1) SCC 222; Rupan Deo Bajaj (Mrs.) and another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 (6) SCC 194 ; State of Kerala and others vs. O. C. Kuttan and others, 1999 (2) SCC 651 ; State of U. P. vs. O. P. Sharma, 1996 (7) SCC 705 ; Fashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, 1997 (2) SCC 397 ; Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, 1998 (8) SCC 728 ; Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 )." 11. of NCT of Delhi) and another, 1998 (8) SCC 728 ; Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 )." 11. Thus, from the aforesaid enunciation of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that there cannot be scanning of the material to arrive at the conclusion whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If the complaint and the material collected do not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive or inherently improbable then the proceeding can be quashed. 12. The present factual matrix is to be tested on the touch stone of the aforesaid law. It is not a case where it can be said that the petitioner had no role to play. The petitioner had issued the marksheet to Rakesh Sahu. The statement of Shri C. K. Jain, Registrar, M. P. Bhoj Mukta Vishwavidyalaya, (the English translation of which has been filed by Mr. Shroti) reads as under :- "At that time, it was the duty of the Regional Director Shri S. P. Gautam to see that the person who is shown in the attendance sheet, his copy is not entered in the name of any other person but in the case of Meena Chakravorti it has seen that even after the report, attendance sheet was not seen." The said witness has also stated as under :- "Similarly, what Dr. S. P. Gautam had written on 25-8-2000 that the floppy containing the registration number 970418080289 whose computer print was seized from the Regional Office on 8-8-2000 and of which floppy was sent to Bhopal, was a wrong information because in the University there are 11 digits in the registration number. The Regional Office had not sent any such floppy." 13. From the statement of Dr. R. P. Mishra, (the English translation of which has been filed by Mr. Shroti) it is manifest that the petitioner was the Regional Director in the year 1997-1998. The said witness has stated as under :- "In the case of Meena Chakravorti it was seen that the Regional Director Dr. From the statement of Dr. R. P. Mishra, (the English translation of which has been filed by Mr. Shroti) it is manifest that the petitioner was the Regional Director in the year 1997-1998. The said witness has stated as under :- "In the case of Meena Chakravorti it was seen that the Regional Director Dr. S. P. Gautam had sent blank admission forms to the Centre Incharge at Tikaria which Shri Awadh Bihari Agnihotri Incharge Tikaria got it registered in the name of Rakesh s/o Darbari Lal Resident of Shankarganj at Bhopal; the same No. 97041808023 was issued to Meena Chakravorti and it is clear from the attendance sheet of Meena Chakravorti that she had given the examination of B. A. First Year (Arts) in the year 1997-1998 on the said Roll Number." He has also proceeded to state as follows :- "When the answer books were sent along with the attendance sheet by the Tikaria Centre in the year 1997-1998, it was the duty of Dr. S. P. Gautam, Regional Director to see that copy of the person who is shown in the attendance sheet as the examinee, his copy is not registered in the name of any other person but in the case of Meena Chakravorti it was seen that even after the enquiry, the Regional Director did not see it." 14. In view of the aforesaid statements coupled with the fact that the marksheet was issued by the petitioner to Rakesh it cannot be said that the allegations do not disclose any offence against the petitioner. The documents which have been brought on record by the petitioner, in my considered opinion, would be in the realm of defence. He may explain the same during trial but the same cannot be taken note of for quashment of the proceeding. 15. Though I do not find any merit in the writ petition for quashing of proceeding, I am inclined to observe that any observation made in the writ petition for non-interference at this stage would not weigh with the learned trial judge. As the petitioner is under suspension the learned trial Judge would do well to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the order passed today. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.