IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
Shri Brahama Prakash Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
The President of the Arya Samaj & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. No. 4 of 2018
Decided On : 27-08-2018
Arya Samaj - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 468/465, 418, 417/420 IPC - The court discussed the representation of the petitioner before the Inspector of Schools, the constitution of Managing Committee, and the allegations of fraud. The key legal provisions of Sections 415 and 420 IPC were interpreted to determine the elements of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, ultimately leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner represented for re-constitution of Managing Committee for a school, leading to criminal proceedings under Sections 417/420 IPC. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings citing lack of criminal intent and fraudulent acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the representation made by the petitioner did not satisfy the elements of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Sections 415 and 420 IPC. It concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's representation, the constitution of Managing Committee, and the alleged fraudulent acts, leading to the question of whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 415 and 420 IPC, determining that the elements of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property were not satisfied, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the proceedings before the trial court were quashed.
1. The petitioner in the capacity of President of the Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya, Shillong on 25th May, 2013 represented before the Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong with a proposal for re-constitution of Managing Committee approved by the “Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya members” in general body meeting held on 25th May, 2003. It is further mentioned that for the last three years only Headmasters of all the sections are conducting the schools under the guidance of Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya President and Inspector of Schools, therefore Committee has to be constituted for Arya Vidyalaya High School (HE Section, ME Section and LP Section) Jhalupara for three years, with effect from, approval of Inspector of Schools. Finally has requested that Managing Committee constituted may be approved in the light of the Memorandum of Association of “Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya”, Shillong. The Inspector of Schools appears to have noticed that the School is run by Managing Committee constituted by “Arya Samaj”. The respondents gaining knowledge of the activities of the petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong who has assigned the same to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong.
2. After examining witnesses as were produced by the complainant (respondents) learned Magistrate while considering the question of framing or otherwise of the charge, after hearing both the parties passed a detailed order dated 8th November, 2017 and has opined that offences punishable under Sections 468/465, 418 IPC are not made out whereas on the basis of the material prima facie, commission of offence punishable under Sections 417/420 IPC are made out. While observing so learned Magistrate has recorded that the accused person (petitioner herein) has shown that the Managing Committee has been constituted for the School Arya Vidyalaya Proceeding High School whereas the materials in record reveal that the “Arya Vidyalaya High School, Jhalupara” is run by “Arya Samaj”. Accordingly, in pursuance of the said order has framed charges against the accused on 12th February, 2018 for commission of offence under Sections 417/420 IPC.
3. The petitioner (accused) has filed the instant composite petition under Sections 379 and 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside order dated 12th February, 2018 and also for quashing the entire proceedings. Preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the basic order dated 8th November, 2017 passed by learned Magistrate in pursuance whereof charge has been framed, has not been assailed, said contention is repelled as the learned counsel would submit that the petition may be treated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. While admitting the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the question arise for determination is as to whether continuation of criminal proceedings will cause miscarriage of justice or will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. According to learned counsel for petitioner the petitioner as President of the “Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya”, Shillong had represented before the Inspector of Schools on 25th May, 2003 for approval of the Managing Committee of Arya Vidyalaya Proceeding High School which has not been accepted. The petitioner has neither forged any documents nor acted fraudulent and dishonestly that is why learned Magistrate has opined that Sections 468/465, 418 IPC are not applicable. The opinion of learned Magistrate that offences under Sections 417/420 IPC are prima facie made out is incorrect because there was no criminal act nor there was any attempt to commit any crime. “Arya Samaj and Vidyalaya”, Shillong has been registered under the Societies Registration ACT XXI of 1860 in the year 1956-57, Patta is also in the name of the petitioner.
5. Perusal of the records reveal that in the year 1979 on a representation of the President of the “Arya Samaj Shillong” which has been established in the year 1935. Director of Pu
AI
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.