SAJITH Vs. SANOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 1606 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara challenging the order of the court below framing charge against them under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) The petitioners herein are officers of National Institute of Fire Engineering having its main office at Ernakulam and Branch offices at Kozhikode and Vadakara. Lured by the advertisement in the media, the de facto complainant approached the Vadakara Branch of the National Institute of Fire Engineering in the month of February, 2017. He interacted with the petitioners and they induced him to believe that the one year course in Diploma in Fire and Safety Engineering conducted by the Institute had State and Central Government approval. The complainant was told that the course fees was Rs. 32,000/-. On 30.3.2007, the de facto complainant along with his father went to the Vadakara Branch of the NIFE and joined the course. He availed education loan from the South Malabar Gramin Bank with the aid and facilitation of the accused. On 2.2.2008, he successfully completed the course. Armed with the certificate, he went to Dubai. While in Dubai, he applied for various job opportunities including one at the Ordinance factory, Chanda, Maharashtra. Later, he received intimation from the Ordinance factory that the course done by the de facto complainant did not have recognition from the Central or the State Government. According to the de facto complainant, the accused with fraudulent intent induced him to join the Fire and Safety course and made unlawful gain.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant had approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and had filed Annexure-A1 complaint seeking compensation and return of the amount that was paid by him. He would also refer to Annexure-A3 application for admission submitted by the de facto complainant and specifically to page No. 2 of the application and would contend that the de facto complainant was perfectly aware that the course that he had joined did not have any University or Government approval. The de facto complainant was a diploma holder in Wood and Paper Technology from the Government Poly Technic, Cannannore and he with open eyes had joined the institute to learn another skill. He would finally contend that the petitioners being paid employees cannot be held responsible for failure of the Institute to obtain recognition for their course from the Government. The learned counsel would also contend that while tendering evidence before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the father of the de facto complainant had stated in unmistakable terms that he was aware that the course had no Government recognition.