Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 245 (KER)

Sajith v. Sanoop

2019-03-08

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2019
ORDER : The instant revision petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1606 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara challenging the order of the court below framing charge against them under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are officers of National Institute of Fire Engineering having its main office at Ernakulam and Branch offices at Kozhikode and Vadakara. Lured by the advertisement in the media, the de facto complainant approached the Vadakara Branch of the National Institute of Fire Engineering in the month of February, 2017. He interacted with the petitioners and they induced him to believe that the one year course in Diploma in Fire and Safety Engineering conducted by the Institute had State and Central Government approval. The complainant was told that the course fees was Rs.32,000/-. On 30.3.2007, the de facto complainant along with his father went to the Vadakara Branch of the NIFE and joined the course. He availed education loan from the South Malabar Gramin Bank with the aid and facilitation of the accused. On 2.2.2008, he successfully completed the course. Armed with the certificate, he went to Dubai. While in Dubai, he applied for various job opportunities including one at the Ordinance factory, Chanda, Maharashtra. Later, he received intimation from the Ordinance factory that the course done by the de facto complainant did not have recognition from the Central or the State Government. According to the de facto complainant, the accused with fraudulent intent induced him to join the Fire and Safety course and made unlawful gain. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant had approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and had filed Annexure-A1 complaint seeking compensation and return of the amount that was paid by him. He would also refer to Annexure-A3 application for admission submitted by the de facto complainant and specifically to page No. 2 of the application and would contend that the de facto complainant was perfectly aware that the course that he had joined did not have any University or Government approval. The de facto complainant was a diploma holder in Wood and Paper Technology from the Government Poly Technic, Cannannore and he with open eyes had joined the institute to learn another skill. The de facto complainant was a diploma holder in Wood and Paper Technology from the Government Poly Technic, Cannannore and he with open eyes had joined the institute to learn another skill. He would finally contend that the petitioners being paid employees cannot be held responsible for failure of the Institute to obtain recognition for their course from the Government. The learned counsel would also contend that while tendering evidence before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the father of the de facto complainant had stated in unmistakable terms that he was aware that the course had no Government recognition. 4. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent, he has not cared to enter appearance. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the materials on record. 5. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 6. In the case on hand, specific allegation is that the de facto complainant was induced to believe that the course had Government recognition and he was made to part with Rs. 32,000/-. Alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount paid and compensation, the de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode on 19.8.2010. The evidence was recorded and it was during the pendency of the said complaint that a criminal complaint was lodged in the month of March, 2012. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners are merely employees of the Institute. The amount was transferred through account by the de facto complainant and no one has a case that the petitioners have directly benefited. The evidence was recorded and it was during the pendency of the said complaint that a criminal complaint was lodged in the month of March, 2012. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners are merely employees of the Institute. The amount was transferred through account by the de facto complainant and no one has a case that the petitioners have directly benefited. At any rate, the de facto complainant has already approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for return of the amount paid and also for compensation. It is seen from the complaint that the National Institute of Fire Engineering is the 2nd respondent in the consumer complaint. If he succeed in his endeavor to show that there was deficiency in service, necessarily, he would be granted relief by the consumer forum. From the materials on record, there are no conclusive materials of the criminal intention of the petitioners at the time when the said offence is alleged to have been committed. Furthermore, the de facto complainant has already approached the alternative forum for remedies. In that view of the matter, this does not appear to be a case where the matter should be allowed to be fought in the criminal court. The learned Magistrate was not justified in holding that a case was made out against the petitioners. The order framing charge against the petitioners will stand set aside. The petitioners are discharged holding that no case is made out against them. This revision petition will stand allowed.