Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2056
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manoj Misra, J.
Khushi Lal @ Khushi Ram And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 15901 of 2015
Decided On : 04-06-2015
For the Petitioner: N.K. Maurya.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate.
Operating a school without recognition from authorized Boards can establish a prima facie case of cheating.
Headnote:
Cheating - School Recognition - The court found that the school operated without recognition from any authorized Boards, leading to a prima facie case of cheating against the applicants.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them for running a school without recognition from authorized Boards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case of cheating due to the absence of recognition from an authorized Board for classes IX/X.
Issues: Allegations of running a school without recognition and the absence of evidence to disclose an offence of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of recognition from an authorized Board for classes IX/X established a prima facie case of cheating against the applicants.
Final Decision: The application to quash the charge sheet and consequential proceeding was dismissed, allowing the applicants to apply for discharge at the appropriate stage.
Manoj Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants; the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the proceeding in criminal case no.1367 of 2015 (State Vs. Khushi Lal and another), arising out of case crime no.62 of 2009, police station Kishni, district Mainpuri, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)-1st, Mainpuri.
3. The allegation against the applicants is of running a school by the name of Gautam Budh Public School, Sakra, Narayanpur, district Mainpuri from Class KG to Class-X without obtaining recognition from any of the authorized Boards. The police investigated the matter and laid charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that although no recognition may have been granted to the said school, but no examinations were being taken by the school and, therefore, no offence of cheating can be said to have been committed by the applicants.
5. Whether there is any evidence collected to disclose an offence of cheating, cannot be ascertained because the applicants have not enclosed statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC in support of the charge sheet. But, so far as existence of a prima facie case is concerned, that is made out from the allegations, inasmuch as, for taking classes of Class IX/X there has to be some recognition from an authorized Board. As admittedly no recognition has been obtained from any Board, therefore, a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the applicants.
6. In view of the above, the prayer of the applicants to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding, at the threshold cannot be accepted. It will, however, be open to the applicants to apply for discharge at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner, if already such discharge application has not been rejected or charge has not been framed.
Subject to above, the application is dismissed.
