Criminal proceedings, particularly those alleging cheating, cannot proceed if a final civil judgment has conclusively determined the absence of any connection, agency, or privity between the accused and the wrongdoer regarding the same transaction, as this would constitute an abuse of the court's process.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No.1 dated 20.12.2006 titled as “Raghbir Singh versus Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Deemed University, D.Y. Patil Vidyanagar, Nerul, Navi Mumbai and others” under Section 406, 420 and 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala alongwith the summoning order dated 30.09.2015, the present petition has been filed.

2. The controversy before this Court emanates from the criminal complaint submitted by the respondent alleging cheating by an authorized representative of the petitioner institute on the pretext of securing admission into the petitioner institute. The petitioner on the other hand submits that they have no concern with the person to whom money was paid by the complainant and no agent-principal relationship exists between them. It is also said that in the civil proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery, petitioner’s plea was accepted and suit against them was dismissed. Hence, once the petitioners have successfully defended themselves in Civil Court, they cannot be held criminally liable for the same transaction.

Submission by Petitioners

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 instituted the present complaint against the petitioners as well as one Sachin Shah (respondent No.4) alleging that, in the month of July 2006, respondent No. 4-Sachin Shah approached the complainant at Batala and represented himself to be the authorised representative of petitioners No. 2 and 3, who are members of the Managing Committee of Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Mumbai (Petitioner No.1). It is alleged that respondent No. 4 claimed that the petitioners were engaged in providing professional education and that he could arrange seats for students in professional colleges for courses such as MBBS, BDS, Engineering, etc., in the management quota, purportedly on the grounds of cancellation of seats and by getting them converted into the management quota seats under Section 3 of the Medical Council of India Act .

4. It is further submitted that, pursuant to such representation, the complainant was made to speak telephonically with the petitioners by respondent No.4-Sachin Shah (non-petitioner). Relying upon these assurances and inducements, the complainant is stated to have paid an amount of ₹7,75,000/- for securing a seat in the MBBS course for Ms. Navjot Kawaljit Singh Kaur, the niece of the complainant, in the medical college run by petitioner No. 1-University. The amount was paid by way of demand drafts bearing No. 644360 dated 27.09.2006 for ₹2.50 lakhs; demand draft No. 644397 dated 17.10.2006 for ₹5 lakhs; and demand draft No. 644398 dated 17.10.2006 for ₹25,000/-, all drawn in favour of petitioner No. 1-University. These demand drafts were allegedly handed over to Sachin Shah and were duly encashed.

5. It is further alleged that an allotment letter dated 30.09.2006 was thereafter sent to him indicating finalisation of the admission of Ms. Navjot Kawaljit Singh Kaur against a cancellation seat converted into the management quota. A subsequent confirmation letter dated 11.11.2006 was also stated to have been received. Acting upon such confirmation, the complainant along with Ms. Navjot Kawaljit Singh Kaur approached the college ru