Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 21/1/11 titled as “Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science Vs. S.S. Mantha & Ors.”, which was filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Also seeksetting aside of the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to which summons have been issued to the petitioners.

3. Since all the petitioners have challenged the same complaint and the impugned order, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.

4. The allegations against the petitioners are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other with a view to cheat the complainant and cause harm to the reputation of the College. In furtherance of this intention, the petitioners forged the inspection report and the words ‘‘NOT RECOMMENDED”were added later on. The complainant led the pre-summoning evidence of two witnesses. One of the witnesses, i.e., Mr. Devender Gupta (CW1) is the Founder-cum-Chairperson of the College and other is Mr.Sitanshu Gupta (CW 2), a friend of CW 1.

5. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the above said witnesses in their oral evidence have merely tried to prove one telephonic conversation which is stated to have taken place on 21.08.2009 between Mr. Devender Gupta (CW 1) and one Dr. Surinder Singh, the latter was one of the members of the Joint Inspection Team that had inspected the premises of the Complainant Institute on 20.08.2009. Crl. M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31

6. He submitted, past history of the case is that on 21.05.2009, the premises of the Complainant Institute was inspected as a Ist inspection by the above Committee and since the said Committee found deficiencies, therefore, affiliation was denied. The Complainant Institute challenged the Ist inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIP University) as the 2nd inspection. Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint inspection was conducted and same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again. A copy of the report was handed over to the Complainant Institute in the Court on 21.08.2009.

7. On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute had filed objections to the report. As the aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.

8. Learned counsel pointed out that in collateral proceedings being W.P.(C) No. 12724/2009, Single Bench of this Court on 22.03.2010 directed yet another inspection of the Complainant Institute by Sh. C.K. Mahajan, a retired Judge of this Court. This was the third inspection.

9. On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct the B.Pharma Course. Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University. This order was made absolute on 11.05.2010.

10. Further submitted, the Complainant Institute filed an appeal being LPA No. 540/2010 challenging the order dated 11.05.2010, the same was dismissed on 15.07.2010.

11. Thereafter, the Complainant Institute filed contempt petitions, which were dismissed by this Court on different dates, i.e., 11.03.2010, 26.04.2010 an