Raj Kumar Hota vs State Of Orissa

B. P. Routray, J

The Petitioner has sought for quashing of the criminal proceeding arising out of Khandagiri P.S.Case No.220 of 2017 corresponding to C.T.Case No.2188 of

2017 on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

The F.I.R. was lodged by the Registrar of Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University. It is reported that Dr.Raj Kumar Hota, the present Petitioner was the

Additional Dean-cum-Placement Officer and responsible for campus recruitment drive. During the placement drive, he had contacted different companies and

twenty six numbers of students upon receiving their appointment letters when went to join their respective postings were denied to join and it is suspected that there

is cheating of employment in recruitment drive conducted in the campus. Subsequently in course of investigation, it came to light that 462 students of ITER under

Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University (hereinafter referred as ‘SOA’), who got appointment in campus recruitment drive in 2016-17, have been cheated

by fake placement drive. It further came to light that, the Petitioner has arranged and accommodated campus selection drive in SOA for nine different companies

namely, INTEL Securities, ZTE Huawei, Magneti Marelli, Supertech Global, IRCON Construction, Mitsubishi Electrical, Toshiba-TTDL, Honeywell Aerospace and

Scheider Electric. This Petitioner in connivance with other accused persons conducted different placement drives in SOA and the students have been issued with

fake appointment and joining letters. Thus, the chargesheet for commission of offences under Sections 420/419/468/ 471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 66(C)/66(D) of the Information and Technology Act has been submitted against the Petitioner and other accused persons.

Shri Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner though has not been named in the F.I.R. as an accused and he

has been cheated by the other accused persons in SOA campus drive, but has been named as an accused in the chargsheet by the Investigating Officer without any

prima facie case against him. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is not the maker of any forged documents and no mens-rea is established against him. Further,

the statements of the witnesses and other connected materials do not implicate him as an accused. The learned Senior Counsel also relies in his favour the decisions

reported in the cases of Sheila Sebastian v. R.Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581, Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 622, Hridaya

Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, Muralidhar Satpathy v. State of Orissa, 2007 SCC OnLine Ori 323,A nil Kumar Bose v. State of

Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 616, State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

Mr.Mund, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the contrary submits that, there are ample materials brought against the Petitioner in course of

investigation to implicate him in the offences alleged. The Petitioner is the Additional Dean of SOA and responsible for campus recruitment drive and he has

coordinated with those nine companies to hold the campus recruitment. Further, his connection with other accused persons are well established and admitted.

Therefore, a strong prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner.

Law has been well settled in matters relating quashing of criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) has laid down the principles

for quashing of the proceeding. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:

“40. The core of the above sections namely 156, 157 and 159 of the Code is that if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he must either

proceed with the investigation or cause an investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that in a case where the police officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation,

he can dispense with the investigation altogether; that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which

the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the

provisions relating to investigation and that it is only in a case wherein a police officer decides not to investigate an offence, the concerned Magistrate can intervene and either

direct an investigation or in the alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can, at once proceed or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into

or otherwise to dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code.

xx                                                      Â

             Â

xx                                                                     Â

xx

In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,

we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an

exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute

any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police

officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make

out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an

order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the

rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the

complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.â€​

Now coming to examine the instant case in the light of principles settled as above, it is seen from the copy of the investigation report that, this Petitioner has been

named along with other accused person as one of the conspirators in conducting the fake recruitment drive. The position of the Petitioner as Additional Dean-Cum-

Placement Officer of ITER under SOA is not denied. The Petitioner does not also deny his connection with other accused persons and conducting of campus

recruitment drive by those other accused persons. The victim students as well as the authorities of SOA including the informant have stated this candidly in their

statements made before the I.O. The e-mail communications and the electronic devices have been seized from possession of the Petitioner and as per victims as

well as officials of SOA, this Petitioner being in-charge of the campus placement drive has the responsibility of everything for campus recruitment.

It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that, he had no knowledge of fraudulent recruitment drive conducted by other accused person in the campus of

SOA and failure on the part of the Petitioner to verify genuineness of the same is an administrative lapse on his part, for which no criminality can be attributed to

him. To substantiate the argument, it is submitted that since the appointment and joining letters were admittedly not issued by the Petitioner, therefore the question of

forgery does not arise and as such cheating being a consequential offence of forgery, the same will not also stand. This is not found a convincing argument, mainly

for the reason of his acquaintance with other accused persons, who have issued forged letters. The proximity of the Petitioner to the extent he is involved in

issuance of those forged letters and his mens-rea in the offices are definitely is matter to be decided in course of trial. Further, It appears from the statements of the

witnesses that they have implicated the Petitioner in such offences to offer fake appointment letters to the students.

By looking into the definition of cheating as well as the meaning of the words ‘fraudulently’ and ‘dishonestly’, as defined in the Indian Penal code,

which envisages to cause damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property, the contention of the Petitioner that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the victim

is not found to be a ground for consideration in favour of the Petitioner. Moreover, the authorities of SOA have stated that by such action of fraudulent campus

recruitment drive huge financial loss has caused to the institution.

The materials brought in course of investigation does not rule out involvement of the Petitioner in the offences and upon close analysis of the same, it cannot be

safely said at this stage that they on their face value, if accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences or make out a case against the Petitioner.

Therefore, having scrutinized all the materials and considering the circumstances, no merit is found in favour of the Petitioner for quashing of the criminal

proceeding against him. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.

Copy of this order be uploaded in the High Court’s official website as per Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

……………………………..