Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 895 (CAL)

Gaurav Midha v. Professor Asish Bhattacharya

2011-07-07

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE

body2011
JUDGMENT KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. 1. THIS is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Thakurpukur Police Station Case No. 303/2007 dated 07.10.2007 under Section 419/465/468/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. 2. THE prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner herein appeared in the CAT Examination 2007. It has been alleged that the petitioner and some other accused persons filled up several application forms wherein some anomalies were detected. It is alleged that the following discrepancies have been detected:- "1. Application Forms with different names and addresses but with same photographs. 2. Application Forms by the same candidate with different addresses. Some of the addresses are matching with the addresses of the candidates who have used same photographs for different names. 3. Similar hand writing and signatures of different candidates. 4. Signatures in capital letters of some of the candidates. 5. Some of the candidates have sent as many as five or six applications with different addresses. 6. Identical mark sheets and certificates including the same subject wise marks of some of the candidates. 7. THE addresses mostly are Punjab, Haryana and New Delhi. THE most common address C-25, Vijay Mandal Enclave, Near IIT Flyover, New Delhi - 110 016." In view of such discrepancies the FIR was lodged under Section 419, 465, 468, 469 and 471 IPC. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against two accused persons including the petitioner herein with a prayer for discharge in respect of one accused person out of total number of 39 accused persons. In respect of other accused persons, the charge-sheet was silent and the de facto complainant filed a Naraji petition. The Learned Magistrate after hearing the parties allowed the Naraji petition directing further investigation in respect of other accused persons for whom there was no mention in the charge-sheet. 3. THE Learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.07.09 observed that the Case Diary did not disclose as to what type of investigation had been conducted by the I. O. against the remaining FIR named accused persons who had neither been charge-sheeted nor mentioned to be discharged from the case. 3. THE Learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.07.09 observed that the Case Diary did not disclose as to what type of investigation had been conducted by the I. O. against the remaining FIR named accused persons who had neither been charge-sheeted nor mentioned to be discharged from the case. It has also been recorded by the Learned Magistrate that no reason was assigned by the I.O. as to what prevented him in the matter of proceeding in respect of those other accused persons. THE Learned Magistrate directed the O.C. Thakurpukur PS for deputing a competent officer other than earlier I.O. to conduct further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. 4. IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner filed four application forms with same photographs, but with different addresses with the object that he would appear at the centre of his choice according to his convenience. IT is contended that excepting the filing of different addresses in those application forms, there is nothing to show any dishonest act or intention on the part of the accused petitioner. IT is contended that as per printed written instructions, more than one application form could be filed in case there was any mistake. The learned counsel contends that the total number of accused was 39 and the I.O. submitted charge-sheet in respect of two accused with a prayer for discharge in respect of another accused, but, the I.O. did not mention anything about the rest of the accused persons for whom the Learned Magistrate directed further investigation. 5. IT is further contended that the I.O. uptill now did not submit any report after the reinvestigation. IT is submitted that the petitioner was ultimately declared "passed" by the Board conducting the examination and after passing the examination he got lucrative job abroad, but, for the pendency of the case, he is not in a position to accept the job abroad and he has been suffering much for the pendency of this case. 6. IT is submitted that since there is no dishonest intention on the part of the present petitioner, the proceedings against him should be quashed and he should be discharged from this case. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposes this application and submits that there is a racket and further investigation is going on. 6. IT is submitted that since there is no dishonest intention on the part of the present petitioner, the proceedings against him should be quashed and he should be discharged from this case. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposes this application and submits that there is a racket and further investigation is going on. It is submitted that so far as this petitioner is concerned, the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner is to face the trial. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the materials appearing in the Case Diary. 7. ON perusal of the Case Diary I find that it is the specific case of the prosecution that this accused petitioner filled up five application forms with different addresses. It is the case of the prosecution that by filling up multiple application forms for issuance of multiple admit cards having different roll numbers, the contacted applicants who have also filled up multiple application forms would render necessary help if they are placed in the same room. 8. IT is also the case of the prosecution that there were application forms of some candidates with different names and addresses, but, with same photographs. It is also the case of the prosecution that there is a racket and there are many persons who had already passed IIM Exam and placed in different jobs and they come to the examination centre filling up more than 4/5 application forms to help or impersonate their contacted candidates in exchange of hefty amount of money and thus there was a criminal conspiracy. 9. THE printed instructions of the examination so far as the proviso to point No. 5 is concerned, it runs as follows:- "no corrections will be permitted after submission of the application form. However, in case a candidate identifies any mistake in the submitted form, he / she may buy and submit a fresh form duly filled-in by September 8, 2007." 10. IT is not the case of the petitioner that there was a mistake and, as such, he filled up four other application forms. The only contention of the petitioner is that for the sake of convenience of appearing in the examination centre as per his choice, he filled up five application forms with different addresses, but, with the same photographs and same signatures. The only contention of the petitioner is that for the sake of convenience of appearing in the examination centre as per his choice, he filled up five application forms with different addresses, but, with the same photographs and same signatures. The question as to whether this act of the petitioner shows dishonest intention or not, is a question of trial. Dishonest intention can be decided after recording evidence. IT is a disputed question of fact. Since the charge sheet has already been submitted in respect of the present petitioner and the Learned Magistrate having passed an order for further investigation in respect of other accused persons, I find that it is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result the application fails and the same stands dismissed. 11. URGENT Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.