SANDEEP KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is technical consultant of Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan (deemed University) (hereinafter referred to as "the University" for short) and had opened a study centre under an MOU with the University under Distance Learning Programme (DLP) in the name of Indian Institute of Aeronautics at Western Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was offering B.Tech Degree on Aeronautical Engineering under DLP of the University. Some parents of the students of this institute lodged an FIR with DCP, Economic Offences Wing and alleged that till September 2004, study was going on well in the institute but on 1st September 2005, they learnt about a letter No. F.68/2004(CPP-1) dated 23rd August 2005 that the institute has not taken approval of awarding B.Tech degrees from UGC so the students obtaining degree will not be eligible for higher studies on the basis of degrees of the institute. It was mentioned in the FIR that the complainant showed the said letter of University Grants Commission (UGC) to the authorities of the institute and the authorities of the institute assured that the approval was obtained by the institute and in no way the future of the students would be hampered. However, when on 20th September 2005, four students went to Distance Education Council (DEC) and UGC to find out if the assurance given by the institute was correct or not, their enquiry from DEC and UGC revealed that the degrees of the institute and the university were not approved either by DEC or by UGC. It was alleged that after learning this fact, all the students left the institute, some took admission in other colleges in the first semester and some had to leave the studies but in spite of that this institute was giving admission to fresh students. In view of this, it was requested that action should be taken against the institute so that the institute was not be able to play with the future of other students by giving admission without obtaining approval/permission from the appropriate authority. It was also submitted that the institute had been charging a sum of Rs. 3 lac for the said course from each student and it was prayed that action under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC be taken against the institute. Copies of prospectus, UGC letter and the complaint made by the complainant to different authorities were attached with the complaint.

(2.) The petitioner has sought quashing of this FIR on the ground that a circular dated 9th August, 2005 issued by UGC gave misleading information to students, DEC also gave confusing and misleading information. The petitioner and other affected institutes thereafter filed writ petitions before different High Courts and operation of the Circular of UGC was stayed by different High Courts. In Delhi High Court, UGC made a statement that the impugned circular had been withdrawn. It is also submitted that ex post facto approval was given to the course being run by the institute by DEC and UGC and the impugned FIR was registered on a misleading circular which created fear and panic amongst the students.

(3.) It is not in dispute that petitioner's institute was an off campus centre and was opened under the permission of the University. The institute was awarded provisional authorization by the University on 10th December 2003. The students of the University had made inquiries from UGC about the recognition of the course of B.Tech being conducted by the University from various institutes and UGC vide its letter dated 29th July, 2004 had written to one of the students as under: