Back
Refuses to Quash FIR Against Couple in MBBS Seat Fraud
The has refused to quash an FIR against a couple accused of defrauding a woman of ₹1.40 crore by promising to secure an MBBS seat for her daughter. Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petitions filed by Dr. Shilpa Aravali and her husband Kiran Kumar P, ruling that the allegations disclose offences under Sections 406 () and 420 () of the .
The Mother’s Dream Turned into Exploitation
The complainant, Smita Prasad, a mother of two, met Dr. Shilpa Aravali at Prakriya Hospital in . After learning that her daughter had failed to secure a medical seat, the accused allegedly offered to use their influence to get the girl admitted to a private college. Trusting their promise, the complainant first paid ₹35 lakh in cash and later transferred ₹1.05 crore to Kiran Kumar’s bank account—a total of ₹1.40 crore. Despite repeated assurances, the seat never materialized, and the money was never returned.
The couple argued that the matter was purely a civil dispute and that the criminal complaint was merely a coercive tool for recovery. They also pointed to a three-year delay in filing the complaint. The state, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, opposed the quashing, insisting that the investigation was ongoing and that the allegations disclosed serious criminality.
'Cloak of Civil Transaction Cannot Smother Criminal Investigation'
Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously examined the ingredients of and . The court observed that the complainant alleged of a staggering sum for the specific purpose of securing a medical seat, which was never fulfilled. The court noted: “If the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, what emerges is, not a mere case of money advanced and money remaining unpaid . It is an allegation of a mother's aspiration for her daughter's medical education being converted into an instrument of exploitation.”
The court rejected the argument that the case was only a civil dispute, stating: “The cloak of a civil transaction cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal investigation.” It further held that the delay in approaching the police did not efface the allegations, as the accused allegedly continued to dodge the complainant for two years.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “To obliterate the crime at this embryonic stage would amount to stifling an investigation into allegations which, on their face, disclose .”
- “Every transaction involving money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its criminal complexion.”
- “The allegation is that, a staggering sum of ₹1,40,00,000/- came to be entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2 for one singular and specific purpose—to secure a medical seat for the daughter of the complainant.”
Investigation Allowed to Proceed
The High Court dismissed both criminal petitions, clearing the way for the to continue their investigation. The court observed that the allegations of , , and were discernible and required a thorough probe. The decision reinforces the principle that a purely monetary transaction can still carry criminal overtones when the foundation of the transaction is alleged to have been laid in .
