Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007
Date of Decision: 27.1.2009
Narender Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pawan Gaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC..
seeking quashing of FIR No. 197 dated 1.6.2006 registered at Police
Station Old Faridabad, under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC. FIR has been
annexed with the present petition as Annexure P14.
It has been stated in the FIR that Ajay Nagar, student of I.M.T.
had come along with Sandeep Kumar and Satish Kumar to the College
for filling the form of re-appear. Sandeep and Satish were also student
of same College. There he learnt that exams of Madurai Kamraj
University are going on under the supervision of Narender Shastri, the
Director of Law College. He found that one boy sitting on the third floor
was doing the paper of Public Administration on 1.6.2006. This paper,
Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 2
according to allegations in the FIR was scheduled two days before i.e.
29.5.2006. Anil, Librarian, was found providing help to the examinee by
providing answer sheet and question paper. Yogesh Kumar, student of
fourth class of College, was also providing additional sheet to him for
completing the paper. It was learnt that this was done by Anil, Librarian,
for monetary gains. It was further averred that the Distance Education
papers of Madurai Kamraj University are held under the supervision of
Narender Shasti, Director of Law College.
In the petition, it has been stated that two Institutions namely
National Institute of Law and Institute of Management & Technology,
both at Faridbad are affiliated to the Maharishi Dayanand University,
Rohtak. It has been further averred that Distance Learning Programme
at I.M.T. Campus is being run by Adhiyamaan Educational and
Research Institute, Faridabad and Ravinder Nath Rajotiya is the
Programme Officer of Madurai Kamraj University for the Study Center in
Faridabad and S.K. Jindal is the Programme Director and the petitioner
has nothing to do with the Distance Learning Programme. It has been
further stated that the Petitioner had left this Institute on 24.3.2006 and
had no concern with the affairs of the Institute. It has been further
averred that petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 376 IPC
against S.K. Jindal on 5.7.2005 for committing rape of Maya wife of
Mahipal, who was Peon of the Institute. A number of instances have
been given to show that complainant is inimically deposed against the
petitioner.
Mr. Bedi has placed reliance upon various FIRs annexed with
the present petition. Reliance has been further placed upon information
Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 3
sought under the Right of Information Act, 2005, from the Madurai
Kamraj University wherein it has been stated that Ravinder Nath
Rajotiya was Incharge of the Examination Center being a Chief
Superintendent.
On a question asked to the State counsel as to what material
is with the Investigating Agency to show involvement of the petitioner in
conduct of examination whether he was appointed as Invigilator or
Superintendent of the Examination, Mr. S.S. Mor, learned Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that he was appointed as
Director of Law College, on 15.6.2005. On a further question asked that
in what capacity, Law College of which petitioner was Director was
concerned with Distance Education Learning Programme affiliated to
Madurai Kamraj University, Mr. Mor has failed to show any document.
He has stated that there is only a disclosure statement of Examinee
Priya Darshi in which in the last line it has been stated that accused Anil
had introduced him to accused Narender Singh.
Settled legal position is that only that portion of disclosure
statement is admissible which leads to recovery. In the present case, no
recovery has been effected rather question paper, answer book and I-
card were presented by the Examinee to the Police Officer. Even if it is
taken that disclosure led to the recovery, only that portion of disclosure
statement is admissible which led to recovery and anything else said in
this disclosure statement cannot be read.
Mr. Mor very candidly and fairly stated that except this piece of
evidence, there is no other incriminating evidence with the prosecution
in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 4
In the present case, since report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
has been submitted, this Court will be hesitant to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Two fold contentions of Mr. Bedi are that there is no
admissible incriminating evidence except as stated by counsel for the
State, and disclosure statement portion which incriminate petitioner is
inadmissible, therefore, this Court should quash the proceedings. It has
been further submitted that definition of cheating as defined in Section
415 IPC spell essential ingredients that somebody should be deceived
to deliver any property to any person. As in present case no property
has been delivered or promised to be delivered, therefore, no offence of
cheating is made out, according to the counsel.
Mr. Mor has stated that once report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
has been submitted, counsel for the petitioner has got a liberty to raise
all the arguments before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge.
There is no doubt in my mind that in case such arguments are
raised before the trial Court, the trial Court shall examine these
arguments and find if there is any incriminating evidence or not or
whether ingredients of offence are made out or not. Needless to say
trial Court shall pass detailed speaking order, taking into consideration
arguments raised.
Therefore, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
January 27, 2009
“DK”