No MBBS admission despite taking fee: Karnataka HC quashes criminal proceedings against top KIMS officials
Karnataka: Bringing relief to the top executives of Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), the Karnataka High Court has set aside criminal proceedings initiated against them in a case of cheating.
The case was registered against them in 2016 based on a complaint filed by a man alleging that his son was denied a seat in MBBS course during 2014-15 despite collecting money. The High Court observed that the officer of the Central Crime Branch who was responsible for filing the charge sheet exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so as he was not authorized to submit the final report as per the provision of code of criminal procedure.
Referring to an Apex Court's decision in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Lalu Singh, and the court noticed that " under Section 36 of the Code CCB is not the Officer in-charge of the police station for the purpose of submitting the report contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code. As such, the cognizance taken without there being any proper report by the in-charge Officer is not sustainable in law."
As per Section 173(2) of the Code, it is the officer-in-charge of the police station who shall forward the report to the Magistrate empowered to take the cognizance and as such, admittedly the present case has been filed with a final report by CCB which has not been declared as a police station as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Code. When the CCB Inspector is not in-charge of the police station, he is not competent to file the report. It is his further submission that CCB being a specialized Investigating Agency can investigate into a particular crime which is referred to it either by judicial order of the Court or by administrative order.
Be that as it may, it is a well-settled proposition of law that on perusal of the charge sheet material, if no case has been made out so as to frame the charge, then the Court has to discharge the accused.Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have made out a case so as to allow the petitions and to set aside the impugned orders dated 7.12.2017 and 1.6.2016. In that light, the petitions are liable to be allowed.