PROF K. SUDHA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.54/2019 and written information dtd. 20/11/2019 registered by respondent No.1 police for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, JLB Road, Mysuru and grant such other reliefs.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint with the police on 20/11/2019 against this petitioner and other concerned former Vice Chancellors of Karnataka State Open University, Mysuru and various Academic Collaborative Institutions and their Study Centres for having committed grave error in entering into MOUs with private persons, etc. permitting them to admit the students to various courses without seeking legal opinion from the Government. It is alleged in the complaint that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Governor and the Chancellor of the Universities i.e., communication from the Hon'ble Governor and Chancellor of the University under Sec. 8(8) of the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992, the complainant was directed to file the complaint. It is also alleged in the complaint that One Man Committee was also constituted to enquire into the irregularities and submitted the report right from the tenure of this petitioner and in the report pointed out the committing of the grave error by entering into MOUs with many private persons. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that from the year 2007, the KSOU started entering into MOUs with private educational institutions beyond the territory of State of Karnataka. But, the recognition accorded to the University does not specifically refer to or say anything regarding the courses offered by KSOU through Collaborative Institutes. Based on the complaint, Crime No.54/2019 has been registered for the above offences.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments vehemently contend that this petitioner was appointed as Vice Chancellor for the period from 2003 to 2007 and only two MOUs are entered during the tenure of this petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India was also taken and the opinion is clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and it is pointed out that the One Man Committee report observed that there was an ambiguity in the law. The learned counsel would contend that the Governor's direction does not pertain to the MOU entered into by this petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that the UGC permission was withdrawn in 2014 and the petitioner who has discharged duties as Vice Chancellor, is now aged about 76 years. The complaint averments do not attract any of the ingredients of the offences which have been invoked against the petitioner.