IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 CRM-M No.1799 of 2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Sumitra Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Dr. Sandeep Berwal and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) is for quashing of complaint bearing No.78 of 2015, instituted on 20.04.2015 titled ‘Dr. Sandeep Berwal vs. Dr. Sumitra Devi and others’ (Annexure P-10) registered under Sections 500 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohana as well as the summoning order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-

11).

2. Tersely, the facts of the case are that applications were invited by Bhagat Phool Singh Institute of Teacher Training and Research, Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat for aspirants seeking admission in Ph.D (Education). The entrance exam for the academic year 2010-2011 was scheduled to be conducted on 29.06.2010. The issue arose when the respondent no. 1 on routine check found petitioner no. 1 absent without notice on two occasions i.e 26.11.2008 and 20.04.2010 and informed the same to the Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, on 16.04.2010, complainant was threatened by petitioner no. 1 to implicate him in false and frivolous case and pressurized by the then Vice Chancellor to withdraw the complaint (supra). However, on 02.06.2010 respondent no. 1 wrote a letter to the Vice- Chancellor, intimating that since his wife is one of the applicants, therefore, the task of superintendence be allotted to the next senior teacher i.e. Dr. Suman Dalal (Petitioner no. 2). In consequence thereof, petitioner no. 2 was appointed as convener to supervise the affairs of entrance examination. After the exam was conducted, one of the candidates anonymously moved a complaint (Annexure P-4) to Vice Chancellor B.P.S.M. Vishwavidyalaya, along with Governor and Chief Minister, Haryana concerning the malpractice in Ph.D. entrance exam. On 05.07.2010 the complainant wrote a confidential letter to the Vice Chancellor wherein he sought comments from petitioner no. 1 on irregularity in evaluation of the test booklets for admission to D.Ed programme and display of unauthorized merit list. Subsequently, the Vice Chancellor constituted a committee of three members comprising of petitioner no. 5, 6 and 7 to investigate the issue involved in bugling of Ph.D. admissions. Pursuant to that the report was submitted on 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-8) after considering the statements of all the staff members on examination duty and released the merit list and furnished their opinion to the Vice Chancellor. Afterwards, Sh. C.K. Kapahi former Dy. Secretary was appointed to conduct the inquiry. On completion of the inquiry, report was submitted on 26.07.2012 whereby he recommended that the result of Ms. Renu Bala (wife of respondent no. 1) be declared as null and void. The complaint (supra) was instituted by respondent no. 1 alleging that the petitioners in connivance with each other, in order to wreak vengeance made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor with the ulterior motive to blemish the career of wife of respondent no. 1, and tarnish the reputation of the respondent no. 1 and his wife.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the impugned order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-11) has been passed in a most cryptic fashion without satisfying the objective standards of reason and justice. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has issued notice to the petitioners without applying judicial mind and without duly considering the facts and evidence as it is mandatory that prima facie case be made out before summoning the person as an accused. Learned counsel