DIAMOND SODHI Vs. MUKAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint No. 23 dated 23.2.2017 titled 'Mukal Arora versus Diamond Sodhi and others' under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 31.5.2017 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 18.8.2015, the respondent had visited the office of petitioner No. 4 for Australia general skilled Migrant Visa program and petitioner No. 2, being an employee of petitioner No. 4, had filled the registration form dated 18.8.2015. At that time, the respondent was 39 years of age and total 60 points in different fields were required by the respondent for the said migration program. In this regard, a written contract was entered into between petitioner No. 4 and the respondent. All the terms and conditions of the contract were duly explained to the respondent, who after accepting all the terms and conditions, had put his signature on the said contract. As per the terms and conditions of the said contract, the respondent had paid Rs. 28,500/- to petitioner No. 4. After registration, the respondent was provided expertise guidance and he was asked to sign the application for skills assessment to be submitted to VETASSESS, which is Australia's leading vocational education and training (VET) assessment provider. The said form was signed by the respondent and he submitted a demand draft of Rs. 810 Australian Dollars in favour of VETASSESS. After assessing the skill points of the respondent, VETASSESS had given the result positive. On 23.12.2015, the respondent visited the office of petitioner No. 4 and paid the second installment of Rs. 80,150/-. As per the contract, the respondent was asked to prepare and appear for PTE (Pearson English Test Academic). The respondent of his own appeared in PTE test but failed to get the band marks as required by the assessing authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioners have been summoned by the trial Court without complying with the mandate of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. He further submits that prima facie, there was no evidence against the petitioners to summon them under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as the amount was received by petitioner No. 4 against proper receipt and for the services rendered by the petitioners to the respondent. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent remained unsuccessful in clearing the PTE test within time i.e. before attaining the age of 40 years and the element of mensrea or inducement is missing in the present complaint. It is further argued that the petitioners have been wrongly summoned under Section 24 of the Emigration Act and the provisions of Emigration/Immigration Act are not applicable to petitioner No. 1 and no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners as per the contract entered into between the respondent and petitioner No. 4.