Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 797 (GUJ)

Poonam Vijaykumar Sedani v. State of Gujarat

2017-04-12

N.V.ANJARIA

body2017
ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. The present application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The grant of anticipatory bail is prayed for in connection with First Information Report bearing Crime Register No.I-36 of 2017 dated 13th March, 2017 registered with Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad, in respect of the offences alleged under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The present applicant-accused happens to be the Principal of the school named as accused in the First Information Report. The offences alleged are in relation to extending false promice to the hundreds of parents and inducing them to pay high amount of fees for admission in the Junior Kindergarten on the false pretext that it was in the Central Board (CBSE) syllabus by charging huge amount of fees. The commission of offences were shown to have been occurred since 2015. 3. The first informant in the F.I.R. was one of the parents. He stated that he was serving as Purchase Manager at Krishna Shalby since six years, had son aged six years and younger son aged three years. He alleged that during the academic year 2015-16 he was searching a good school for admitting his son to Junior K.G. Class. As he went to the school administered by the applicant-accused, other parents had also come, and the administrator and the principal of the school-the accused persons in the F.I.R., gave out to all the parents who were seeking admission for their wards, that their school had CBSE recognition and such recognition is obtained for the class starting from Nursery to 8th standard. It was promised that the ward would get admitted automatically to the higher standard in the same set-of of course, that is CBSE syllabus. The first informant was charged Rs. 40,000/- towards tuition fees and admission fees. He alleged that however despite payment, no receipt was given to him by the school management. Further fees of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in respect of the term of the next academic year, for which also no receipt was parted with. The first informant was charged Rs. 40,000/- towards tuition fees and admission fees. He alleged that however despite payment, no receipt was given to him by the school management. Further fees of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in respect of the term of the next academic year, for which also no receipt was parted with. 3.1 It was alleged that in the meantime the first informant and other parents came to know from the sources that the school namely H.B. Kapadia, where they had secured admissions for their wards in the Junior K.G. as above, did not have any CBSE recognition in actuality. When they gathered further details, they found that the school management had collected different amount of fees from different 400 parents of the wards admitted in the school. The trustee and the administrator of the school stated at that time that the recognition would be obtained as soon as the wards entered the first standard. That did not happen. The parents thereafter met the administrator and complained that they had collected against the rules high amount of fees on the basis of promise that they had CBSE course affiliation and it was alleged that the accused persons, who were the trustee and administrator of the school management, played with the future of the children. 4. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr.M.K. Purohit for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the State, at length. 5. In respect of the aforesaid very F.I.R., another accused Muktak Navnitlal Kapadia who happened to be Trustee of the school had filed an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8890 of 2017. The same was decided and rejected by order dated 12th April, 2017. The facts and the allegations being identical, the reasoning supplied in the said case would have application to the present case also. 5.1 The following observations and reasoning from the aforesaid order which are extracted herein, in so far as they are relevant and could be applied to the case of the present applicant who was a Principal, to be part of the reasoning of the present order also. "5. The allegations in the First Information Report highlighted above, are peculiar in themselves pertaining to the field of education. They are serious. They are peculiarly serious. "5. The allegations in the First Information Report highlighted above, are peculiar in themselves pertaining to the field of education. They are serious. They are peculiarly serious. The accused herein who held the position of trust amongst the parents of the budding students seeking admission to the Junior Kindergarten classes, cheated them by promising that the school run by the accused had the Central Board (CBSE) recognition and that the ward would get automatically admitted and elevated to the next standard in the CBSE set up. It was in about 400 cases of such promised admission, the accused persons who were the administrators of the school, collected huge amount ranging from Rs. 45,000-50,000 from the parents. They were the parents hailing from middle-class of the society, dreaming and aspiring to get imparted education for their children pinning hopes in the promice meted out by the accused-school administrators. 5.1 Banking upon the projected and promised system and syllabus of study in CBSE affiliated course, the parents paid sizable amounts for which they must have spent their hard-earned money and dear savings. In the entire case, the eye-catching aspect was also that school management did not gave receipt to the fees collected. The nature and seriousness of the allegations are such which the society as a whole would prefer to banish for all times to come. 5.2 It appears that accused persons had started a section in their institution named as 9-Kids' in which the admissions as aforesaid were promised and the students were inducted into as many as 18 classes collecting huge fees. In some cases, the ward was studying in another school, but relying on the say of the school administrators-the accused persons, the parents changed the school shifting their ward to seek admission in the instant school. Cases were noticed from the material that even more than one ward was got admitted by the parents by paying fees. The payment of amount of fees was in the range of Rs. 50,000/- for which there was no criteria shown, as different amounts were collected from the parents. Investigational papers made available by learned Additional Public Prosecutor from the investigating officer present in the court contained the statements of the aggrieved parents. 5.3 The offences alleged in the F.I.R. are of cheating punishable under Section 420, IPC and of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, IPC. Investigational papers made available by learned Additional Public Prosecutor from the investigating officer present in the court contained the statements of the aggrieved parents. 5.3 The offences alleged in the F.I.R. are of cheating punishable under Section 420, IPC and of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, IPC. The submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not be brushed aside lightly that gist and the attendant ingredients of these offences was dishonest intention. It was submitted that prima facie the said ingredient was established in the totality of the allegations as the accused were alleged to have collected huge fees on a false promise though CBSE recognition was admittedly not there for the course in question and that the same was applied online only as late as on 14th February, 2017. He submitted that at the time of inducement of the parents to act to part with the amount of fees and to secure admission for their wards, there was a dishonest intention. Although, the side of the applicant sought to refute this. 5.4 From the totality of the allegations, the material in form of the statements recorded as well as the details of the fees collected, the magnitude of the act and conduct constituting commission of the offence stands manifested. In Siddhram Stalingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 one of the parameters indicated by the Apex Court in paragraph 112(vi) is "impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people". This parameter could be said to be satisfied in the facts of the present case. It could hardly be said that the accusations levelled by the parents were for sake of levelling them or that they have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her, which is the parameter indicated in (vi) above. 5.6 In paragraph 120 of the Siddhram Stalingappa Mhetre (supra), the Supreme Court underlined that the court must learn to maintain a fine balance between the personal liberty and the social interest while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The present case could be viewed as one where the scales of larger educational and social interests tilt higher. 7. 5.6 In paragraph 120 of the Siddhram Stalingappa Mhetre (supra), the Supreme Court underlined that the court must learn to maintain a fine balance between the personal liberty and the social interest while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The present case could be viewed as one where the scales of larger educational and social interests tilt higher. 7. Why the false promice was extended even though CBSE recognition was not in existence; in any case it was not to be there for Junior K.G. course in question; what was the fee structure and what was the rules for collection of fees; in what manner the collection of fee was applied and acted upon; why different amounts were collected from different parents in the range of Rs. 45,000- 50,000 and what motivated the accused persons to act and conduct in such way smacking of dishonest intention, are all the areas of investigation. It would be also the function of the investigating agency to ascertain as to how the dates of settlement projected and the date of letter of the first informant coincided with the proceedings of filing of legal proceedings in the nature of application before the Sessions Court and before this Court. In other words, simply stated, the total operation of allegations, facts, attendant aspects and the developments stated above, do spell out the need for investigation and interrogation. 8. The different parameters and principles laid down by the Apex Court in Siddhram (supra) were considered and applied to the facts of the case. The claim of personal liberty for the applicant-accused could only be viewed as taking a back-seat against the overriding facts, nature and seriousness of allegations and the special aspects of the case stated hereinabove." 5.2 The aforesaid considerations apply. It is not possible to segregate the role of the present applicant from the role of the other accused-the Trustee and applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8890 of 2017. 6. Having considered the allegations, gravity thereof, attendant facts and aspects and assessing the entire scenario emerging there from, further considering all these aspects in light of the investigational material made available, the Court is not persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 7. The present application stands rejected. Notice is discharged.