Om Prakash Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Hon''ble U.C. Dhyani, J.—Heard. By means of the present writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.04.2007 relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 511 and 120B IPC at Police Station Jwalapur, Dstrict Haridwar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant Rajkishor Singh Pharswan, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D. has lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner who is Lab Assistant working in Arihant College of Education, Badhedi Rajputana, Haridwar without proper investigation and application of mind. He also submitted that the petitioner was asked to accept the Forms only from the students and there is no allegation of demand against him. The petitioner has not been assigned any role other than that of accepting the cash on the direction of Dr. Mahesh Sharma and Deepak Jain, Directors of the institution. Present petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not assigned any major role other than that of receiving the amount on behalf of the institution on the direction of Dr. Mahesh Sharma and Deepak Jain.

The students who made the complaint were not in the list of students selected against the Management Quota and therefore, there was no question of giving them admission.

He further submitted that the matter belongs to the year 2005-06 and the list of candidates to be given admission during that academic year was provided by the University. The Institute had no discretion in the matter of admission during that year. On 01.05.2006 an advertisement was published by Secretary, Education, Government of Uttarakhand indicating that the students may apply directly to the University and the merit list shall be prepared by the University itself, hence there was no role of the Arihant College of Education, Badhedi Rajputana, Haridwar in providing admission to anybody. The fee structure was already mentioned by the Secretary, Education in advertisement dated 09.03.2006, hence any allegation to the contrary is unfounded and without basis. Even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that demand for money was made, that itself does not constitute any offence. In any case, the allegation against non-applicants Dr. Mahesh Sharma and Deepak Jain was not beyond raising a demand for money.

Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the present petitioner had nothing to do with the same in the sense that even if he did it, he did so on the directions of Dr. Mahesh Sharma and Deepak Jain without even knowing the purpose of collecting the same. Those who paid have been refunded their amount. Complainants were neither selected nor were in the waiting list of admission to B. Ed. course.

Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel representing the State opposed the writ petition vehemently and submitted that the investigation in the instant case is almost completed. Involvement of the petitioner has been found by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Khan brought to the notice of this Court that the Investigating Officer has moved for permission of Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand for filing the charge-sheet against the petitioner. On being questioned, as to why the permission of Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarkahand was being sought, learned counsel for the State submitted that since the FIR was lodged at the instance of Principal Secretary therefore permission was being sought from him by the Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet against the petitioner.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the FIR dated 24.04.2007 relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 511 and 120B IPC at Police Station Jwalapur, Dstrict Haridwar. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made an alternative prayer for directing the Magistrate concerned to dispose of the Bail Application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

The alternate prayer seems to be innocuous, hence the same should be allowed.

Considering the fact that the present petitioner is not named in the FIR, petitioner is simply a clerk in the said institution coupled with the fact that he was not a beneficiary even if he received money from the students on the direction of Dr. Mahesh Sharma / Deepak Jain, it is directed that in case the present petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate concerned and moves an application for bail, the same shall be disposed of without unreasonable delay after hearing both the sides. Interim Relief Application (CLMA No. 3358 of 2012) also sands disposed of.