KRISHNACHAND SOMNATH SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing of complaint being C.R. No.I -1088/2003 registered at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as charge -sheet filed pursuant thereto and all other proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

(2.) THIS Court (Coram:

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned complaint it transpires that the same came to be lodged on the basis of a written application, which came to be filed by respondent No.2 -first informant/original complainant, to the Police Inspector of Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City. It appears from the said application, which is treated as F.I.R., that three persons are named as accused i.e. applicant No.1 (original accused No.1), applicant No.2 (original accused No.2) and one Shri Mahendrabhai Parshotamdas Jadia (original accused No.3), who was Registrar of the Gujarat University. That the crux of the allegations, which are leveled in the complaint are to the effect that the courses of self -financed technical / management courses, such as Engineering, Pharmacy, MBA, MCA, Architecture, Arts and Crafts, etc. are supervised and recognized by a parent/apex body viz. All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi. It is mentioned in the complaint that the schedule of fees, which were to be charged by such self -financed institutions, were fixed by the State Level Committee and the development fee was determined by the AICTE for the recognized institutions. It is further averred that such fees are published in the Official Gazette and as development fees can be charged/collected from the students after it is published / prescribed by its publication in the gazette. It is further alleged that the State Level Committee publishes a notification to the said effect and thereafter a resolution is sent to the concerned university. It is further contended that in order to develop the technical education in India, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 came to be enacted w.e.f. 28.12.1987 and thereafter the concerned department, through AICTE, framed regulations and the schedule of fees in the form of directions vide order dated 18.03.1997. It appears from the impugned complaint that the State Level Committee of the State of Gujarat vide notification dated 24.11.1999 fixed the fees and development fee, which can be charged by the self -financed institutions imparting technical and management courses for the academic years 1999 -2000 and 2000 -01 as well as 2001 -02 and copy of the said notification was also sent to the Gujarat University as well as the self -financed institutions. It is further contended in the complaint that a Higher Power Committee is also constituted vide order dated 31.05.2003 consisting of six, members who were experts in the field in order to verify whether during the academic year 2000 -01 more fees were collected then prescribed by certain self -finance institutions. As averred in the complaint, more particularly in Paragraph Nos.8.1 and 8.2 thereof, it is, inter alia, alleged that the applicants were guilty of collecting and charging more tuition and development fees than the prescribed fees by the State Level Committee on the basis of notification dated 24.11.1999 issued by the State Level Committee constituted for that purpose. It is alleged that applicant No.2 in his capacity of managing trustee of the trust, which is running such self -financed institute, has already collected more fees as alleged and thereby all of them have committed the offences as alleged. That the complaint further quantifies that applicant No.2 has illegally collected amount of Rs.36,75,000/ - and have thereby committed offences of cheating, more particularly upon the students. On the basis of this factual background, it is alleged that all the accused persons as well as Shri Mahendrabhai Parshotamdas Jadia (original accused No.3), Registrar, have connived with each other and by misusing their powers, as public servants, have committed the offences as alleged in the complaint.