Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 494 (MP)

Ashutosh Bhargav v. State of M. P.

2017-04-11

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR and all consequential proceedings including the charge sheet filed against the present petitioner for the offence under section 420 of IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that on an complaint, police authority has raided the premises of petitioner Bhartiyam Public School, Shivpuri where D.Ed. examination was going on, which according to the complainant was contrary to the University Grants Commission's (for brevity UGC) rules, regulation and guidelines issued in this regard. The said D.Ed. examination was being conducted by petitioner on misrepresentation and without documentary support and for which money has been charged to defraud the students. Neither center was affiliated with UGC nor with any UGC affiliated educational institution nor with any recognized university whereas money was taken from students, therefore, case was registered against the petitioner under section 420 of IPC and investigation was carried out. In the investigation, it was found that petitioner was running an institute which allegedly taken permission from Agrawal College and Web Services Trust, Haryana and the said Agrawal College and Web Services Trust was allegedly affiliated with Karnataka State Open University, Mysore. 3. Charge-sheet further reveals that UGC has issued a public notice dated 16.6.2015 in which it was declared that Karnataka State Open University, Mysore is adopting distance learning mode and blatantly flouting and violating the guidelines of UGC and erstwhile Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, therefore, taking cognizance of this fact, the programmes offered by Karnataka State Open University, Mysore were declared to be not recognized by UGC beyond 2012-13. The said public notice is on record. Therefore, as per prosecution, petitioner was conducting an examination center only just to facilitate the students to undertake examination only in lieu of money. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been affiliated with Agrawal College and Web Services Trust, Haryana and correspondence has been referred where according to counsel for the petitioner, the said trust has given permission to conduct the examination of D.Ed. Course. He relied upon the interim order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the public notice dated 16.6.2015 issued by UGC has been stayed. Course. He relied upon the interim order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the public notice dated 16.6.2015 issued by UGC has been stayed. Therefore, he submits that the public notice has no effect over the case in hand. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits the the petitioner was only conducting the examination center. Center of petitioner is neither affiliated to UGC nor affiliated to any recognized university nor is franchise of a recognized institute so as to conduct examination. Petitioner was taking money from students while representing his center as affiliated center. In fact, center of the petitioner was used as conduit to grant Diploma of Education (D.Ed.) to the students even if they have not studied the course because petitioner does not run the course but only run examination center. This peculiar nature of occupation confirms apprehension of the prosecution about activities of petitioner and therefore, prosecution has rightly prosecuted the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Guru Govind Singh Educational Trust v. State of M.P. in bunch of writ petitions, writ petition No.2838/2011 being leading case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary/charge sheet. 7. UGC has issued the public notice dated 16.6.2015 in respect of Karnataka State Open University, Mysore regarding continuance to offer recognized programmes through distance learning mode. Said university was recognized only till 2012-13 and even issued the show cause notice to the said university on 10.6.2011 after considering their response. UGC has referred that despite intimation given by the UGC, Karnataka State Open University was regularly conducting the courses contrary to the UGC regulations and guidelines. The UGC under the University Grants Commission Act 1956 categorically gives power to commission in respect of Higher Education and determination of standard thereof and therefore UGC is sole regulatory authority in this regard. Once the UGC has given public notice and thereafter even if public notice is stayed by Kerala High Court even then in absence of final order it cannot be presumed that the public notice dated 16.6.2015 has been eclipsed outrightly. Counsel for the petitioner has not referred any final order nor placed final order on record. Once the UGC has given public notice and thereafter even if public notice is stayed by Kerala High Court even then in absence of final order it cannot be presumed that the public notice dated 16.6.2015 has been eclipsed outrightly. Counsel for the petitioner has not referred any final order nor placed final order on record. Similarly, the document which allegedly placed by the petitioner as recognition given by Agrawal College and Web Services Trust, Haryana to the petitioner nowhere gives authority to run examination center for the petitioner. In fact the very existence of Agrawal College and Web Services Trust, Haryana is under doubt. Petitioner could not establish status of Agrawal College and Web Services Trust, Haryana before this Court so as to validate his action or action on behalf of his institute i.e. Bhartiyam Public School. The documents nowhere evoke any authenticity and confidence in respect of affiliation/permission and authorization for running such course. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and others, 2015(2) JLJ1 (SC)= 2015 CrLJ (SC) 2031 has held that where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be entertained. 9. It is well settled that while dealing with the petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashment, the Court has ordinarily to proceed on the basis of averments in the complaint/charge sheet. Defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The Court while considering the prayer for quashment under section 482 of CrPC does not adjudicate upon a disputed question of facts. Petitioner is always at liberty to raise all his grievances and grounds before the trial Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference can be made by this Court. Petitioner has to face trial and he has to plead and prove his innocence there and would be at liberty to raise all grounds including the ones which are being raised in this petition. Hence, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court.