Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
R.S. RAMANATHAN, J.
C. Thayaparan & Another
Versus
Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Chennai
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos. 7618 & 12880 of 2011 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1,1,2 & 2 of 2011
Decided on : 29-04-2013
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF CHARGE SHEET - APPROVAL OF AICTE FOR STARTING NEW COLLEGE - IRREGULARITIES POINTED OUT BY EXPERT COMMITTEE - APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE FIRST ACCUSED - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL - APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE FIRST ACCUSED - CHARGESHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS - WRIT PETITION FILED BY ONE ASHOK CHANDRA - ORDER PASSED IN SLP(C) NO.2519 OF 2004 - HELD THAT THE MATERIALS NOW PRODUCED BY THE DEFENCE WILL NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CHARGES ARE BASELESS - CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITIONS DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were the Managing Trustee and Chairman of the ACP Educational Trust and the first accused was the Advisor (E & T), AICTE, New Delhi. The Trust had applied for starting a new Engineering College and an expert committee from AICTE inspected the site and observed various specific infrastructural and other deficiencies and recommended not to give approval to start the proposed Sun college of Engg. and Technology. The first accused sent a letter to the Trust conveying few observations of the Expert Committee and abused his official position and conveyed the approval to the Trust for starting new Engg. College, knowing fully well that the Expert Committee have observed various deficiencies during their inspection and recommended for outright rejection of the proposal of the Trust. The first accused also falsely mentioned that the approval has been granted based on the recommendation of the Expert Committee knowing fully well that the Expert Committee had not recommended the proposal of the Trust and instead recommended for outright rejection. Similarly, in subsequent years, the first accused abused his official position and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with the second accused, deliberately conveyed only very few minor observations of the Expert Committee and facilitated the second accused in getting the extension of approval to ACP Educational Trust. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offences punishable u/s.120-B r/w 420 and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the statement given by the witnesses during investigation are sufficient to make out the prima facie against the petitioners for filing the charge sheet and whether those allegations are sufficient to sustain the conviction or acquittal can be decided by the trial court. The court further held that the materials now produced by the defence will not lead to the conclusion that the charges are baseless.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR can be filed in the absence of the preliminary enquiry and without getting approval from the higher authority. 2. While quashing the charge sheet, whether the court can look into the other materials provided by the defence. 3. Whether the person, who registered FIR can conduct investigation and file the charge sheet and whether the charges can be quashed on that ground. 4. What is the scope of section 482 Cr.P.C. 5.Whether the statement obtained from the witnesses disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The registration of FIR without prior sanction and approval is not valid and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed and CBI Manual was not followed cannot be accepted. 2. In any proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C, the court is free to consider the material, that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a conclusion, whether charge framed could be maintained. 3. The submission of the learned Senior counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR cannot conduct the investigation and file the final report and on that ground, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed cannot be accepted. 4. The scope of enquiry under section 482 has been elaborated in the following judgments: (2009)1 SCC (Cri)679 [U.P.Pollution Control Board vs.Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another] (2009)6 SCC 351 [Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A.Ravishankar Prasad and others] (2009) 10 SCC 674 [Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.K.Bhutiani] (2010)10 SCC 361 [V.P.Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosives Limited and others] 5. The allegations made in the charge sheet and the statement given by the witnesses during investigation are sufficient to make out the prima facie against the petitioners for filing the charge sheet and whether those allegations are sufficient to sustain the conviction or acquittal can be decided by the trial court.
Final Decision: The criminal original petitions were dismissed.
1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7618 of 2011 is the second accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12880 of 2011 is the first accused in CC.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Madurai. These criminal original petitions were filed to quash the charge sheet filed against them.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The second accused, the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7618 of 2011 is the Managing Trustee of the ACP Educational Trust and Chairman of "Sun College of Engineering and Technology" at Sun Nagar, Erachakulam Post, Kanyakumari District. The college was started in the year 1999 and the second accused sent an application for approval of the college to AICTE, which is the competent authority seeking for approval and the Expert Committee inspected the college and all available infrastructure and submitted a report. The entire deficiencies pointed by the Expert Committee were not informed to the college by the first accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12880 of 2011 and some deficiencies were complied with and rectified and thereafter, Southern Regional Office forwarded a report to AICTE and by proceedings in F.No.732-52-095/NDEG/ET/99, dated 04.11.1999, the approval for establishment of Sun Engineering and Technology by ACP Educational Trust was issued by the first accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12880 of 2010. Initially, the petitioner/A2 was permitted to admit 60 students in three branches, namely Electronics & Communication, Information Technology and Computer Science. In the year 2000, an Expert Committee visited the college to decide the extension of approval and during the course of inspection, the Committee found certain irregularities and deficiencies and the second accused, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7618 of 2011 was directed to rectify the irregularities. Thereafter, AICTE granted approval of extension on 15.09.2000 for the academic year 2000-01 and the Institution was permitted to admit 40 students in each branches. Thereafter, approval was granted every year, after due inspection by the Expert Committee. On 31.08.2009, the respondent registered a case in crime No.RC45/A/2009/CBI/ACB/Chennai for offences under sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against five persons and in the FIR, the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7618 of 2011 was ranked as 4th accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12880 of 2011 was ranked as second accused. After investigation, the respondent filed charge sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2011 against A1 and A2 the petitioners herein and hence, these criminal original petitions were filed to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners.
3. Submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P (MD)No.7618 of 2011:- Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the second accused submitted that the registration of FIR is against the procedures contemplated under the CBI Manual and the filing of the charge sheet is also actuated by malice and therefore material irregularities and the respondent without taking into consideration the grant of approval by AICTE to the Trust for starting the college and permitted them to admit students and without considering the orders passed in W.P.No.19792 of 2003 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.2519 of 2004 erred in filing the charge sheet against the petitioner.
4. The learned Senior counsel elaborated his submission by stating that the grant of approval for starting a new college or for grant of extension of approval was governed by 1987 Act (Act No.52/1987) and the Council has framed regulations for grant of approval and that is known as 'All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions, Introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulation, 1994. As per the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
