RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Bokaro Sector -IV P.S. Case No. 197 of 2012, instituted under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(2.) MR . B.M.Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations, which have been levelled against Toppers Tutorial Private Limited, Bokaro and other accused persons, who happened to be the Managing Director and the Divisional Head that they, after admitting 500 students after charging money, have stopped imparting teaching in the mid -stream of the Session and that the petitioners are about to close the institution and on such allegation, the case was registered as Bokaro Sector -IV P.S. Case No. 197 of 2012 (G.R. No. 2061/2012) under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code though the offence in the face of allegation as stated above, cannot be said to have completed. In this regard, it was further submitted that before the case was lodged when the grievances were raised by the students, the Management of the Institute fixed Rs. 30,000/ - tentatively to be paid to each of 25 students, who had put forth the demand of the money and that for making payment to the rest of the signatories, i.e. 58 in numbers, a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/ had been deposited through Cheque before the Court below and the said amount has been given to 58 students, which would be evident from the statement made in the counter affidavit, wherein categorical statement has been made that all the students have received the money and, in such situation, there would be miscarriage of justice if the petitioners are allowed to be prosecuted for the offence, which was not complete on the date of the lodgment of the case.

(3.) GOING further in the matter, it be recorded that from the allegations what is made in the first information report, it does appear that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat any of the students. The dispute what has been raised in the first information report seems to be essentially a dispute of civil in nature or it can be said that whatever is allegation is there that makes out a case of breach of contract on the part of the petitioner by not fulfilling their obligations, which they were supposed to discharge but the question does arise as to whether in the face of the allegations, one can be said to have committed offence of cheating. In the instant case ingredients which constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 do not appear to be there. The ingredients for constituting offence of cheating are as follows: