Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes 2006 MBBS Admission Cheating Case Against Ex-WB Guv, DY Patil University

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a nearly two-decade-old criminal complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in connection with a purported MBBS admission, holding that the petitioners could not be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because a third party had allegedly cheated the complainant by misusing their name and documents.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "complainant has been cheated of the money on the strength of the misrepresentation made by Sachin Shah, which such misrepresentation was fostered on the strength of the documents shown by him pertaining to the petitioner No.1-University. While this Court is cognizant of the fact that respondent No. 2-complainant may indeed have suffered a financial loss by paying money in the name of petitioner No. 1- University, such loss, by itself, cannot furnish a legally sustainable foundation to subject the petitioners to criminal prosecution. The mere payment of money, unaccompanied by any material establishing the petitioners' involvement in or attribution to the alleged acts of inducement or deception, cannot be treated as sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon them."

The Court added that, it is settled position in law that for any person to be prosecuted for a criminal offence, there must be material indicative of his direct involvement in the commission of such offence. The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of a demonstrable act of deception attributable to the accused himself. The impressions nurtured by the petitioner on the strength of the forged documents produced by Sachin Shah cannot be a reason for fastening such criminal liability on the petitioner.

The case arose out of Complaint registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Batala.

The complainant alleged that one Sachin Shah, projecting himself as an authorised representative of the University, induced him to pay ₹7.75 lakh for securing an MBBS seat for his niece in the management quota. The money was paid through demand drafts drawn in favour of the University and allegedly encashed. Letters of allotment and confirmation were also relied upon by the complainant.

When admission was ultimately denied and the money not returned, criminal proceedings were initiated not only against Sachin Shah but also against the University and its office bearers, including the former Governor.

Earlier Proceedings

The Magistrate initially summoned the petitioners in 2007. The summoning order was set aside by the High Court in 2012 for non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC, and the matter was remanded.

A fresh summoning order dated 30.09.2015 was passed, which became the subject matter of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC. Parallelly, the complainant had also filed a civil suit for recovery of the same amount.

The Civil Court, after a full-fledged trial, categorically held that there was no principal–agent relationship between the University/petitioners and Sachin Shah. The complainant failed to prove that he ever spoke to the petitioners or that any assurance emanated from them. The alleged allotment and confirmation letters were forged documents, not issued by the University.

The bank account in which the money was deposited was opened on forged documents misusing the University's name, while the suit was decreed against Sachin Shah and another accused, it was dismissed against the present petitioners, it noted. The decree was upheld in appeal in 2017 and attained finality.

Allowing the petition, the High Court held that a concluded civil judgment, having attained finality on identical facts, outweighed mere allegations in a criminal complaint.

Justice Bhardwaj opined that once it stood judicially determined that there was no privity, nexus or agency relationship, criminal liability could not be fastened vicariously and a person cannot be criminally tried merely because a third party cheats someone by misusing his name.

"The primal facie relationship between Sachin Shah and the petitioner as an agent and principle was required to be established before the petitioners could be said to be complacent to the commission of the offence. The impressions nurtured, if any, were unilateral. A mistake which is unilateral entails consequences only for the person who carries such impression and the consequences of such unilateral mistakes cannot trickle down on the person qua whom such impressions were carried," the bench said.

The Magistrate failed to consider the binding civil court findings and mechanically issued summons and even on accepting the complaint at face value, the allegations raised only suspicion, not legally sustainable evidence, it noted.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Delhi Race Club, JM Laboratories, Mahmood Ali, and B.S. Joshi, the Court reiterated that summoning an accused is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion mechanically.

The Court also rejected the objection regarding availability of an alternative remedy of revision, holding that Section 482 CrPC powers are inherent and could be exercised to prevent abuse of process.

"A period of 10 years has elapsed after the institution of the present petition. The objection raised by the respondent is, at best, preliminary in nature, and the prolonged pendency of almost a decade before this Court is, in itself, sufficient to disregard such a technical plea regarding the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy by way of revision before the Court of Sessions," the bench said.

In the light pf the above, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the Criminal Complaint.

Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate, Ms. Kritima Sareen, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Savi Nagpal, Asst. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

TITLE: D.Y PATIL VIDYAPEETH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Click here to read order