Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 547 (MP)

Omprakash Kukreja v. State of M. P.

2017-04-24

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2017
ORDER : GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 505/2015 by which the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by ACJM, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 8793/2015 has been affirmed. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a complaint was made that although the school run by the applicants is not affiliated with C.B.S.E., New Delhi but by making misleading declaration in the hoardings as well as by persuading the parents of the students to the effect that very soon the school will be affiliated with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi, the applicants cheated the parents of the students by creating an impression that the school is affiliated with C.B.S.E., New Delhi and, therefore, they got their children admitted in the school. 2. The Police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 188 of IPC. 3. The Trial Magistrate by order dated 22.09.2015 framed charge under Section 420 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Magistrate, the applicants filed a criminal revision which too suffered dismissal by order dated 16.10.2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 505/2015. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that infact the school run by the applicants is affiliated with Madhya Pradesh State Education Board and in the hoardings it was specifically mentioned that "A Senior Secondary School will be affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi" and, therefore, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the applicants at any point of time because they had never claimed that the school is affiliated with C.B.S.E., New Delhi. It is further submitted that by mentioning that "A Senior Secondary School will be affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi", it cannot be inferred that upto Class Xth was also projected to be affiliated with C.B.S.E., New Delhi. The students who were admitted by their parents in the applicants' school were never withdrawn and if they were aggrieved by the fact that although they had got their wards admitted in the C.B.S.E. affiliated school but in fact it was a Madhya Pradesh State Education Board affiliated school, then they should have withdrawn their children. The students who were admitted by their parents in the applicants' school were never withdrawn and if they were aggrieved by the fact that although they had got their wards admitted in the C.B.S.E. affiliated school but in fact it was a Madhya Pradesh State Education Board affiliated school, then they should have withdrawn their children. Non-withdrawal of the children by the parents clearly show that they are satisfied with the performance of the school and it cannot be said that anybody was cheated by the applicants by mentioning in the hoardings as "A Senior Secondary School will be affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi". It is further submitted that in the admission form, the affiliation code of State Education Board is specifically mentioned and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was never disclosed by the applicants that the school is affiliated with the M.P. State Education Board. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the State counsel that in the case of cheating the conduct of the applicants would be crucial. Any misrepresentation made by the applicants which may give a wrong impression in the mind of the parents of the children would be sufficient to make out a prima facie case under Section 420 of IPC. It is further submitted that even in the admission form, it was nowhere mentioned that the school is affiliated with M.P. State Education Board. Merely by mentioning the affiliation code of the M.P. State Education Board would not be sufficient to absolve the applicants from their legal liability because it is not expected from each and every parents that he would be knowing the affiliation code of M.P. State Education Board or C.B.S.E. New Delhi. On the contrary, by merely mentioning the affiliation code of the M.P. State Education Board and by not mentioning specifically that the school in question is affiliated to M.P. State Education Board, it is clear that every attempt was made by the applicants to misrepresent and cheat the parents of the students so that they may get their wards admitted in the school run by the applicants. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 415 of IPC defines the word "Cheating" which reads as under :- "415. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 415 of IPC defines the word "Cheating" which reads as under :- "415. Cheating.-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, 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". Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." 9. It is undisputed fact that the school run by the applicants is still not affiliated with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi. It is the case of the applicants that certain inspections have already been carried out and the school is likely to be affiliated by the C.B.S.E., New Delhi. The allegations are of the year 2014-2015 and still even after passing of two years, the school has not succeeded in getting affiliation with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi because of several deficiencies pointed by the Inspection Team. 10. It is clear that false or misleading declaration was made in the hoardings and the school was not affiliated to CBSE. Even till today, the school is not affiliated to the CBSE. There was no need for the applicants to mention on the hoardings that "A Senior Secondary School will be affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi". There was no need for the applicants to express their intention of getting affiliation with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi. 11. On the hoardings, it is nowhere mentioned that at present the school is affiliated with M.P. State Education Board. The reason for not disclosing the affiliation of the school with M.P. State Education Board prima facie shows that the applicants wanted to give an impression in the mind of the general public that the school is affiliated to the C.B.S.E. New Delhi. The reason for not disclosing the affiliation of the school with M.P. State Education Board prima facie shows that the applicants wanted to give an impression in the mind of the general public that the school is affiliated to the C.B.S.E. New Delhi. The statements of the witnesses have also been recorded by the police, who have stated that when they went to the school for admission of their children, they were informed by the applicants that very soon the school will be affiliated with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi and the education will be imparted according to the C.B.S.E. pattern but later on they came to know that the school is affiliated with the M.P. State Education Board. Thus, it is clear that lay giving misleading declaration in the hoardings, a false impression was created in the mind of the innocent parents of the children to the effect that the school is affiliated with the C.B.S.E., New Delhi and accordingly they got their children admitted in the school. If the parents have not withdrawn their children at a later stage then it would not mean that they had accepted the educational pattern which is being imparted by the school run by the applicants. There may be various reason for non-withdrawal of the children by the parents from the school of the applicants. Even otherwise, it is a disputed question of fact which is required to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after recording the evidence. 12. In view of the fact that without there being any affiliation by the C.B.S.E., New Delhi, a misleading declaration was made in the hoardings which created false impression in the mind of the general public, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicants to frame charge under Section 420 of IPC. Meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge is not required and merely a strong suspicion would be sufficient to frame the charge. 13. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Trial Magistrate did not commit any mistake in framing the charge under Section 420 of IPC against the applicant and the Revisional Court also did not commit any mistake by dismissing the criminal revision. This petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.