Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 959
Supreme Court of India
S.B. SINHA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Dr. Monica Kumar & Another
Versus
State of U.P. & Others
Appeal (Crl.) 968 of 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5593 of 2006]
Decided on: 27-05-2008
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - FIR - Investigation- appellants, is presently working as Professor/Medical Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit [NICU] and also performing medical practice Middleboro Place Modesto California - Both appellants were born in California and completed their schooling in USA - They decided to get admission in MBBS course for the academic session in Medical College Ghaziabad [for short College against NRI quota after remitting and respectively towards capitation fees and additional hostel fees and security deposits for one year - That apart College took loan on interest from father of appellants and its payment was assured by handwritten slip - Disputes and differences arose after the father of the appellants demanded repayment of loan from second respondent herein Chairman & Managing Director/Trustee of Maharaji Educational Trust and Santosh Medical College and Hospital Vijay Nagar Ghaziabad - In matter was reported to Additional District Magistrate Ghaziabad for taking appropriate steps to get loan amount refunded second respondent in his letter acknowledged liability and had also assured to refund entire loan amount –Held, Court to quash or set aside any criminal proceedings pending before criminal court to prevent abuse of process of court but inherent power this Court Article coupled with plenary and residuary powers Articles embraces power to quash criminal proceedings pending before any court to do complete justice in matter before this Court - If court satisfied that the proceedings in a criminal case are being utilised for oblique purposes or if the same are continued on manufactured and false evidence or if no case is made out on the admitted it would be in the ends of justice to set aside or quash the criminal proceedings - Once this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court it would quash such proceedings to ensure justice - This Courts power Article to do complete justice is entirely of different level and of a different quality What would be need of “complete justice” in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power Court would take into consideration the express provisions of substantive statute - Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the constitutional power of this Court - case concerned respondents would be satisfied if an apology is tendered and some amount compensation is awarded favour of third respondents-informants of Crime and of Crime Court having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case are of opinion that it is a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction Article of Constitution of India so to bring dispute between parties to an end - Court however are of opinion that as appellants at relevant time were students no amount of compensation be directed to be paid - They must, however, file a written apology in courts where proceedings are pending - Order accordingly
Judgment
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “Cr.P.C.”] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal Code [for short “the IPC”] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively registered against them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad and seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the aforesaid cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation [for short “the CBI”].
3. This case would reveal a chequered history of legal battle being fought by the appellants - the students of Santosh Medical College on one hand and the authorities of the College on the other hand.
4. Dr. Narendra Kumar, the father of the appellants, is presently working as Professor/Medical Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit [NICU] and also performing medical practice at 2917, Middleboro Place, Modesto, California. Both the appellants were born in California and completed their schooling in USA. They decided to get admission in MBBS course for the academic session 1996-97 in Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad [for short “College”] against NRI quota after remitting US $50,000 and US $49,700 respectively towards capitation fees and additional hostel fees of RS. 75,000 and Rs. 45,000 and security deposits for one year. That apart, the College took a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on interest @ 11.5% p.a. from the father of the appellants and its payment was assured by a handwritten slip. The disputes and differences arose after the father of the appellants demanded repayment of the loan from Dr. P. Mahalingam the second respondent herein, Chairman & Managing Director/Trustee of Maharaji Educational Trust and Santosh Medical College and Hospital, Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. In April 2001, the matter was reported to the Additional District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, for taking appropriate steps to get the loan amount refunded. Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respondent in his letter dated 9.4.2001 acknowledged the liability and had also assured to refund the entire loan amount. It was alleged that the second respondent with vindictive attitude started harassing the appellants and in the result declared in July 2000, Dr. Monica Kumar - the first appellant was got failed in both theory papers of Pharmacology and she was not allowed to appear in two subsequent supplementary examinations as well as in Final Professional MBBS Part-I Examination.
5. The first appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 9150 of 2001 in the High Court wherein vide order dated 14.3.2001, the second respondent was directed to permit the first appellant to appear in the final Professional MBBS Part-I Examination. In compliance of the High Court’s order, the first appellant was permitted to appear in the examination, but her result was deliberately withheld for an oblique motive which compelled the first appellant to approach the High Court of Allahabad by way of Miscellaneous Application in the pending Writ Petition No. 9150/2001 for issuing necessary directions for declaration of her result. The High Court vide order dated 19.9.2001 directed the College authorities to declare the results of MBBS Final Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and the result of the scrutiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination, 2000 and further to permit the first appellant to appear in Final MBBS Part-II Examination and to declare the result of the said examination as well. By Orders dated 7.01.2002/16.01.2002, the High Court directed the college authorities to produce answer books of Pharmacology of the first appellant. On 4.03.2002, the High
