2024:BHC-AS:13559 Sayali Upasani IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2021 Rajendra Savla ...Applicant Vs.

The University of Mumbai and Others ...Respondents Mr. Ajit Anekar with Ms. Priyanka Srivastava i/b Auris Legal, for Applicant.

Mr. Ashish Chavan, for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State-Respondent.

CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED:- 19th MARCH, 2024 ORDER :-

1) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code, 1973”), the applicant assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 23rd February, 2017, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, whereby process was issued against the applicant and the co-accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

2) Shorn of unnecessary details, background facts can be stated as under:-

(a) University of Mumbai, the complainant, is one of the oldest premier University of India. M/s. International Institute of Events and Management Studies (IIEMS), the accused No. 1 was conducting Diploma Courses in ‘Event Management Studies’. Applicant Rajendra Savla – accused No. 2, was the Dean of IIEMS. Ketan Shah, Accused No. 3 was the President of IIEMS.

(b) IIEMS approached the University, seeking affiliation to start a programme in event management under the aegis of the University. A proposal was presented by the University before its Academic Counsel. Post approval, an agreement for conducting the Diploma Course in Event Management was executed between the University and IIEMS on 10th May, 2004. An approval letter was issued to IIEMS permitting it to conduct the Diploma Programme in Event Management as a one-year part-time course in collaboration with University of Mumbai from the Academic year 2004-2005 in accordance with the terms of the MOU dated 10th May, 2004. Under the terms of the MOU, it was, inter alia, agreed that the IIEMS would charge predetermined fees and must remit a portion of the fees to the University. IIEMS was obligated to submit a detailed report of total admissions to the course along with a statement of fees collected.

(c) The University alleged there were several discrepancies in conduct of the said course by IIEMS. Complaints were received by the University from the students. It was noticed that IIEMS had published Brochures/Prospectus in the name of the University as if the University itself conducted the said course. IIEMS allegedly charged extra money from the students by way of fees.

(d) One of the students filed a Writ Petition being WP No. 2533 of 2006. In the said Petition, this Court directed the University to proceed in accordance with law against IIEMS in the event IIEMS did not comply with the directions. Thus, an enquiry was conducted. It transpired that though in the Academic year 2004- 2005, vide letter dated 5th June, 2004, the fee for the said course was fixed at Rs.25,000/- per student, the accused had charged an extra amount of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per student without the knowledge and approval of the University and misappropriated the said amount.

(e) The University, thus, filed a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It was, inter alia, alleged that the applicants – accused Nos. 2 and 3 were the Directors of IIEMS.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were responsible to, and took decisions pertaining to day to day affairs of, IIEMS.

(f) By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was persuaded to issue process against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, observing, inter alia, that the submissions on behalf of the University that the accused have duped many students by representing that the University was conducting the courses in question and by collecting hu