AJAY DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.9.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in criminal revision no.112/2010, whereby the revision was dismissed and order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the JMFC, Vidisha in unregistered complaint (Ajay Dubey Vs. Smt. Devna Arora) in which the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are that in the educational year 2003 -04, the applicant admitted his son Prashant Dubey in the school of respondent no.2 in Class -11th. However, he could not succeed because the competent persons were not engaged to teach. When a biodata was obtained in the school from the accused then, an intimation was given on plane paper and correct information was not given to him and therefore, the respondent no.2 has committed a forgery. It was mentioned that Yogesh Majumdar was a teacher of mathematic, whereas such information was incorrect. Yogesh Majumdar was working as Assistant Professor in St. Mary School, Vidisha in the year 2002 and he was taking his class from 7:00 a.m. To 12:00 p.m. in the noon in that college. Similarly, in the year 2003 -04, Ku. Arti Bhokardole was completing her B.Ed. at Ganjbasouda therefore, the offence under Sections 463, 464, 477(A) and 420 of the IPC be registered. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the applicant, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that out of so many children, only four persons had failed in Class -11th including Prashant Dubey son of the applicant. It was possible that a particular of staff was given to the applicant, which was available in the office record and changes done in the year 2003 -04 were not added or corrected in the information which was available in the office therefore, it cannot be said that while giving the information, the respondent no.2 has committed any forgery. If the appropriate teachers were not engaged by the respondent no.2 then, it was not possible that 90% students would have been passed in Class -11th.