24 Jan 2024 3:12 PM GMT
The Supreme Court (on January 24) quashed a criminal case over alleged forgery and cheating against Dr.Vishal Noble Singh, the Principal of Bishop Johnson School and College, Prayagraj.
A division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih observed that no offence was made out against the appellant on a reading of the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet.
The Court noted that none of the offences were made out, and allegations were made with malafide intent. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, Chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings.
As per the complaint, the appellants cheated the students' parents by forging Bishop Johnson School and Colleg (BJS) affiliation documents and used the same for the Girls' Wing of BJS. Pertinently, FIR was registered under several provisions of the IPC, including for Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
However, the appellant's stance was that the Girls' Wing of BJS started as a section of BJS, not as a new school. The same was done on the approval of the society, Diocese Education Board of Diocese of Lucknow (DEB), which is the managing body of BJS.
Besides, no forged document has been put forth concerning the alleged forgery of the CISCE (Council for India School Certificate Examination) affiliation document of BJS for the Girls' Wing.
One of the appellants roped in the case was Vinod Bihari Lal, Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute). Lal is also embroiled in another matter of alleged mass religious conversion, in which the Supreme Court has granted him interim protection.
Brief Submissions of the Parties
The Senior Counsels appearing for appellants submitted that none of the ingredients for the alleged offences would apply. Further, it was argued that the chargesheet is nothing but a replication of the FIR, and even on the combined reading of the said documents, no offence whatsoever has been made against the appellants.
It was submitted that this is a case where, on account of total prejudice and with malafide intention, the complaints were registered against the appellants. Reliance was also placed upon the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335. Therein, the Court listed the categories of cases where the High Court can, to prevent the abuse of power, exercise its inherent power vested by section 482 CrPC to quash the pending criminal proceedings. These included:
“(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Per contra, the Senior counsel for the respondent state supported the impugned order of the High Court, whereby it refused to quash the case against the appellants. The Counsel sought to contend that the school was being run without recognition or affiliation as an independent school.
Court's Order
During today's hearing, the Court also noted that the second respondent (complainant), though served, has not appeared. Consequently, the Court orally pronounced the order. The court carefully perused the arguments and found none of the offences were made out. Moreover, the Court also questioned the intent with which the FIR was filed. The Court said the allegation was made against the appellants with a malafide intent. The Court opined that the case of Bhajan Lal would squarely apply to the facts of this case.
“….We have given our anxious (consideration) to the arguments advanced….On perusal of the FIR…it is noted that the second respondent has filed the complaint invoking Section s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and Section 120 B of the IPC….the contents of the FIR, as well as the chargesheet, would have to be read in light of the ingredients mentioned in the aforesaid sections and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. On reading of the same, we find that none of the offences alleged as against the appellants herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegation of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellants herein have been made with a malafide intent. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal….squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the HC is set aside and consequently the FIR, Chargesheet and all consequential proceedings and quashed….”
Senior Advocates who appeared for the petitioners were V. Giri, Kavin Gulati, and Siddhartha Dave. They were assisted by advocates Arun Daniel Saunders, Gaurav Agarwal, Shristi Gupta, Harshed Sundar, Ranjit Bisen, Kumar Vikrant, Monisha Handa, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav Sharma, Sthavi Asthana. Advocates-on-Record were Shashank Singh and Mohit D. Ram.
Senior Advocate for the State was Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad.
Case Title: Vishal Noble Singh V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. (SLP(Crl) No. 2389/2023) And Vinod Bihari Lal Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. (SLP(Crl) No. 3337/2023)