IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J.
Abhay Jain v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 18089 of 2017 (I);
Decided on 23.11.2019
Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 384, 468, 471 r/w S. 120B -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 200 and 156(3) -- petitioner No. 1 is Director and petitioner No. 2 is Staff Member of College -- respondent No. 2 took admission is Digital Media Management Programme as well as in degree Course of MBA -- after taking admission, respondent No. 2 got job -- he left College and demanded refund of fees -- filed complaint -- in by-laws of College and in receipt, it is specifically mentioned that amount deposited by student shall not be refundable -- however, respondent No. 2 filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -- Forum directed petitioners to deposit amount -- amount deposited before Forum -- respondent No. 2 cannot make similar claim in similar complaint -- proceedings initiated against petitioners quashed. [Paras 7 & 8]
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 384] 468] 471 lgifBr /kkjk 120[k & naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 200 rFkk 156¼3½ & ;kph Øekad 1 egkfo|ky; dk funs'kd rFkk ;kph Øekad 2 deZpkjhc} dk lnL; gS & ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 2 us fMftVy ehfM;k eSustesaV Áksxzke ds lkFk gh ,eŒchŒ,Œ ds fMxzh ikB~;Øe esa Áos'k fy;k & Áos'k ysus ds i'pkr~ ÁR;kFkhZ Øekad 2 dks ukSdjh ÁkIr gks xbZ & mlus egkfo|ky; NksM+ fn;k rFkk Qhl ds Áfrnk; dh ekax dh & ifjokn Qkby fd;k & egkfo|ky; dh mi&fofèk rFkk jlhn esa fofufnZ"V :i ls mfYyf[kr fd Nk= }kjk tek dh xbZ jde Áfrns; ugha gksxh & rFkkfi] ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 2 us ftyk miHkksDrk fookn Áfrrks"k Qksje ds le{k ifjokn Qkby fd;k & Qksje us jde tek djus ds fy, ;kphx.k dks funsf'kr fd;k & Qksje ds le{k jde tek dh xbZ & ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 2 le:i ifjokn esa le:i nkok ugha dj ldrk & ;kphx.k ds fo#} ÁkjaHk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMrA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 8½
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them vide order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Director and the petitioner No. 2 is the Staff Member of Virtual Voyage College of Designing Media and Management (herein referred as the College). The College is engaged in imparting the learning in the faculty of Fashion design, Media studies, Interior Film making, modeling, even designing, Web designing etc. In the petitioner's College near about 500 students are taking education and more than 1000 students had completed their studies and pass out from the College. The College is affiliated from Makhanlal Tomar Music and Arts University, Gwalior and from Raja Mansingh Tomar Music and Arts University. Both these Universities are recognized from the University Grant Commission.
3. It has been submitted that, one student named Shashank Bafna has taken admission in the petitioner's college in the certificate programme of two year Digital Media Management Programme along with degree course of M.B.A. It has further been submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 2 opted for the degree course of M.B.A. for which the petitioner's college was an authorized study center for Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya. In pursuance to the admission taken by the complainant/ respondent No. 2, the petitioner' college asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- towards the fees. The respondent No. 2 had completed the major portion of two years Digital Media Management Programme and subsequently before completing the final certificate programme, the respondent No. 2 got selected in Digital Media Company and he got a job. He further submits that, for the course of M.B.A. the respondent No. 2 had not submitted his document related to completion of graduation. The petitioner's college had repeatedly reminded the respondent No. 2 to submit the documents, but he has failed to deposit the said documents. After getting the job in a Digital Media Company, the respondent No. 2 decided to not to continue with the certificate programme as well as with the M.B.A. course and he started to create nuisance in the petitioner's college with respect to refunding of the deposited fee. It is also submitted that, as per the bylaws framed by the college, it has been specifically mentioned even in the receipt that once the fees has been deposited it is not refundable. The respondent No. 2 creates the Face Book account by virtual boy chor college. The petitioner' college has submitted a complaint against the respondent No. 2 before the authority of Cyber Crime. For the purpose of refunding of the fee, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Indore, which was allowed and order was passed directing the petitioner to refund back the fees of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the respondent No. 2 along with interest @ 8% per annum. The respondent No. 2 has also filed a private complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for commission of offence under sections 384, 468, 471 read with section 120B of the IPC. The respondent No. 2 has also filed an application under section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned J.M.F.C.Indore. The learned trial Court has allowed the said application and directed the respondent No. 2 to conduct an investigation in the matter. Consequently, the Police had registered a case against the petitioners under section 420 of the IPC. The petitioner's college has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Indore in compliance to the order passed by the Consumer Forum. Being aggrieved by the case registered against the petitioner, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashment of the said F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
4. Learned
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.