HC quashes MBBS fraud case against DY Patil University
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Chandigarh: Granting relief to DY Patil University, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a nearly two-decade-old criminal complaint against the University, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in connection with an alleged MBBS admission.
The case pertained to a complaint alleging that a person, posing as an authorised representative, duped him of money with the assurance of MBBS admission, which was ultimately denied.
In its order, the HC bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bharadwaj observed that the petitioners could not be criminally prosecuted merely because a third party had allegedly defrauded the complainant by misusing his name and documents.
"The complainant was defrauded of money based on misrepresentations made by ***. These misrepresentations were made based on documents produced by him relating to the petitioner No. 1-University. While this Court is aware that the respondent No. 2-complainant may have suffered financial loss by paying money in the name of the petitioner No. 1-University, such loss in itself cannot constitute a legally sustainable ground for criminal prosecution of the petitioners. The mere payment of money, accompanied by no evidence of the petitioners' involvement in or involvement in the alleged inducement or fraudulent acts, cannot be considered sufficient to hold them criminally liable," observed the HC bench.
"The law establishes that in order to prosecute a person for a criminal offense, there must be evidence of their direct involvement in the commission of that offense. The essential elements of the offense under Section 420 of the IPC cannot be invoked unless there is a clear act of deception committed by the accused himself. The impression created by the petitioner based on the forged documents presented by *** cannot be a ground for imposing such criminal liability on the petitioner," it further noted.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the original complaint was lodged under sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the IPC, which pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The original complainant alleged that a certain man, posing as an authorized representative of the University, induced him to pay Rs 7.75 lakh for securing an MBBS seat for his niece under the management quota. According to the complainant, he paid the money through a demand draft issued in the University's name, and it was allegedly encashed.
Apart from this, the complainant also relied on the allotment and confirmation letters. Ultimately, when the admission was denied and the money was not returned, criminal proceedings were initiated not only against the accused but also the university and its officials, including a former governor.
Back in 2007, the magistrate initially summoned the petitioners. Thereafter, in 2012, the High Court quashed the summons order for non-compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC and remanded the case.
Following this, on 30.09.2015, a fresh summons order was passed, and it became the subject matter of the plea before HC under Section 482 of the CrPC. Meanwhile, the complainant also filed a civil suit for the recovery of the same amount.
After conducting a thorough hearing, the Civil Court clarified that there was no principal-agent relationship between the university/petitioners and accused. The complainant failed to prove that he ever spoke with the petitioners or received any assurances from them. It also came to light that the alleged allotment and confirmation letters were fabricated documents and not issued by the University.
The court further held that the bank account into which the money was deposited was opened on forged documents, misusing the name of the University. While deciding the case against the said accused man and another accused, the court dismissed the case against the petitioners. In an appeal in 2017, the decision was upheld and became final.
Now, the High Court, while considering the matter, the High Court bench observed that a final civil judgment, which has been finalised on the same facts, has more weight than mere allegations in a criminal complaint.
In its order, Justice Bharadwaj opined that once it is judicially established that there was no connection, association, or agency relationship, criminal liability cannot be shifted to anyone else. The HC bench also observed that a person cannot be criminally prosecuted merely because a third party misuses his name to defraud someone.
"It was necessary to establish an initial relationship between *** and the petitioner as agent and principal before the petitioners could be considered to have committed the crime. If any impression was formed, it was unilateral. The consequences of a unilateral mistake are borne only by the person who forms such an impression. The consequences of such unilateral mistakes cannot fall on the person in respect of whom such impressions were formed," observed the HC bench.
It further stated that the magistrate failed to consider that the civil court's findings were binding and issued the summons without due consideration. The bench also observed that even if the complaint was accepted outright, the allegations raised only raise suspicion, not legally valid evidence.
The court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Delhi Race Club, JM Laboratories, Mahmood Ali and B.S. Joshi, and reiterated that summoning an accused was a serious matter and criminal law could not be applied indiscriminately.
Apart from this, the court also dismissed the objection regarding the availability of the alternative remedy of revision, holding that the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are inherent and can be used to prevent abuse of the process.
"Ten years have passed since the filing of this petition. The objection raised by the respondent is, at best, preliminary in nature. The pendency of the matter before this Court for almost a decade is itself sufficient to overlook such a technical argument about the availability of an alternative, effective remedy by way of revision before the Sessions Court," observed the high court bench, while allowing the plea and quashing the criminal complaint.
