IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1069 of 2011() ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.3144/2010 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION) .... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1. AND 2. ------------------------------------------- 1. HARIS, DIRECTOR, LIPT, MARIDIAN GROUPS OF INSTITUTIONS, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. RAJEESH, PRINCIPAL,LIPT, MARIDIAN GROUPS OF INSTITUTIONS, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SRI.K.ACHANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S): INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND STATE. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1070 OF 2011 CRMC NO.1071 OF 2011 CRMC NO. 1072 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of June, 2011 ORDER These petitions are filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) to quash the FIRs and on going investigation into offences punishable under Secs.420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). It concerns institutions run by the petitioner under the group of M/s.Meridian Group of Institutions imparting learning in Paramedical courses at different places. 2. Crl.M.C.No.1070 of 2011 concerns the FIR in Crime No.1436 of 2010 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.420 of the IPC. The allegation in that case is that petitioner, proprietor of the institution made the students believe that the institution has recognition from the NCVT, collected money from the students promising that on their passing out from the institution they will get placement, the students who passed out from the institution tried for employment at various places but were told that the certificates they got from petitioner's institution do not have any recognition and thus, there were cheated. Crl.M.C.No.1069 of 2011 is in Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 2 :- respect of the FIR in Crime No.3144 of 2010 of Kottarakara Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. There, apart from petitioner the Principal of the Institution (accused No.2) is also implicated. Crl.M.C.No.1072 of 2011 concerns the FIR in Crime No.1421of 2010 of Anchal Police Station for offences under Sec.420IPC. The allegations are similar as above stated. In Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011 which concerns the FIR in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station offences alleged are under Secs.420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the IPC. There also, similar allegations as in the other cases are made. It is further alleged that petitioner, claiming that his institution has recognition from the Government and the National Centre for Labour and Learning (for short, "the NACELL”) collected money from the students and admitted them for various Paramedical courses and forged certificates and when the de facto complainant in that case questioned the same, petitioner criminally intimidated him. Learned counsel contends that all these cases have been registered against petitioner with ill motives. According to the learned counsel, service of one Sreedev who was employed by petitioner was terminated for (alleged) misbehaviour to a girl, the said Sreedev who was a worker of the DYFI and the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 3 :- West conspired together to sabotage the institutions of petitioner and registered a case at Kollam West Police Station. News of arrest of petitioner was flashed in the media and at the instance of the Sub Inspector, Kollam West cases were registered at other Police Stations referred above. Learned counsel contends that there is no law which required petitioner to get recognition either from the Government or from the NACELL to run such courses. It is also contended that as petitioner was not required under law to get recognition from the Government or NACELL question of cheating does not arise. So far as allegation of forgery is concerned, it is contended that apart from the mere allegation in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station (Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011) regarding forgery of certificates, no attempt was made to recover any of the alleged forged certificates. So far as Sec.506(i) of the IPC is concerned, it is contended that if the allegation that petitioner cheated and committed forgery cannot be sustained, there is no occasion for the de facto complainant in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station (Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011) to approach petitioner with a complaint and the latter criminally intimidating him. Learned counsel argued that petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution to conduct any business Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 4 :- or trade so far as it is not prohibited and the conduct of the police has interfered with that fundamental right of petitioner. Learned counsel pointed out that as per Sec.157 of the Code, the police officer must have “reason to suspect” that a cognizable offence is committed, to register a case and investigate. It is argued that it is without any sufficient “reason to suspect” commission of any cognizable offence that the police have registered the cases. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the various annexures produced in Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation is not that petitioner conducted courses without recognition from the Government or the NACELL but, he made advertisements in the media that he has recognition from the State/Central Governments, the NCVT, made the students believe so, collected money from them but it is without such recognition that petitioner conducted the courses which amounted to cheating. It is contended that materials collected by the police in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station would show that signed formats of certificates in bulk were obtained by the petitioner from M/s.St.George Group of Institutions which itself was not competent to issue any such certificate and those certificates were filled up by the petitioner and distributed among students (learned Public Prosecutor Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 5 :- submitted that in that case, Sri.Stephen S/o. George who is running M/s.St.George Group of Institutions is also made an accused in Crime No.988 of 2010). According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to interfere with the investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the affiliation certificate allegedly issued by the M/s.St.George Group of Institution is fabricated. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that if the grievance of petitioner is that then Sub Inspector, Kollam West Police Station conspired with a former employee of petitioner and registered a false case at Kollam Police Station and thereafter cases were registered at various places, the said Sub Inspector has been transferred (though not for this matter) to some other place and his successor-in-office is investigating the case. 3. I referred to the allegations against petitioner, in short. It is only in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station that offences under Secs.420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the IPC are involved. In all other cases offence alleged is only under Sec.420 (in one case, r/w. Sec.34) of the IPC. In short, allegation in all the cases is that petitioner canvassed that he has recognition from the Central/State Governments, the NCVT and admitted students to the various courses. Question for Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 6 :- consideration is whether proceeding against petitioners are to be quashed. In Crl.M.C.No.1070 of 2011 Adv.Harish Gopinath has submitted that the de facto complainant was duped to make a complaint and that he does not now stand by his allegations. 4. I shall refer to the annexures produced by the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011 (which is taken as the leading case). Annexure-A1 is the Certificate of Affiliation said to be issued by NACEL described as an associate of KELSUN, resource NGO to Government of India, Approved Training Centre for Social Welfare Department, Government of Kerala. That certificate states that M/s.Meridian Group of Institutions (Kottarakara) is an affiliate of the NACELL for the conduct of job oriented technical courses approved by the NACELL as per the rules and regulations stipulated by the NACELL for the period mentioned therein. Annexure-A2 is the Certificate of Registration issued to M/s.Meridian Group of Institutions stating about its quality management system with the requirements of ISO 9001 : 2008. That certificate is issued by QUALILOGIX. Annexure-A3 is the notice of admission to LABRAYS (institution of petitioner at Kottarakara). Annexure-A4 is the off campus certificate issued by St.George Group of Institutions, Kottampally, Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram. On the top of that certificate the words Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 7 :- “NCVT Govt. of India” is written. The said certificate says that it is issued to the Principal, LABRAYS institute of Paramedical technology, Kollam with effect from August 2009 to August 2014 and that the institute can conduct courses in Paramedical (Health Inspector, Hospital House Keeping Management), Computer courses (Data Entry Operator, Computer Hardware and Networking) and Teacher Education (Pre-primary TTC) with the affiliation of Govt. of India. It is mentioned in Annexure-A4, that St.George Group of Institutions is recognized by SCVT, Government of Kerala, Ministry of Labour and Employment and is affiliated to NCVT, Government of India. Annexure-A5 is the certificate of affiliation issued by the NIST. Annexure-A7 is the NCVT certification, general guidelines to the applicants for the various courses. Learned counsel invited my attention to clause (2) in the second page of Annexure-A7 where it is stated that candidates who appear for examination without undergoing the training specially conducted, should come prepared for the examination having undergone the courses with the assistance of teachers or other technical advisors (learned counsel argued that recognition from the Government or any other authority is not required to run the institutions). Annexure-A8 is the format of certificate of M/s.Meridian Group of institutions. That certificate Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 8 :- is to say that the candidate has successfully completed the course (in the courses conducted in the institutions of petitioner). Petitioner has also produced along with Crl.M.A.No.3356 of 2011 (Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011) Annexure-A15, a certificate issued to the de facto complainant in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station to contend that allegation of forgery is not correct. Annexure-A16 is the acknowledgment made by the de facto complainant in that case for receipt of the certificate. 5. I have been provided with the CD file relating to Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station. Page 29 contains the affidavit of investigating officer for getting police custody of petitioner. Page 43 is the statement of Stephen S/o. George (who, learned Public Prosecutor submitted is impleaded as additional accused in Crime No.988 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station). There, the said Stephen is said to have told the investigating officer that he had issued to the institution of petitioner at Kollam a certificate in the name of NCVT (ie, Annexure-A4 in Crl.M.C.No.1071 of 2011). He is seen to have told the investigating officer that he has no authority to issue any such certificate on behalf of the NCVT (I stated that on the top of Annexure-A4, it is written 'NCVT, Govt. of India'). The further statement is that St.George Group of Institutions got recognition Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 9 :- from the SCVT but it has no right to issue a certificate to another institution (like that of petitioner) on behalf of the NCVT. At page 60, there is a complaint from the de facto complainant dated 09.12.2010 where he has stated that it was represented to him that the institution of petitioner has recognition of the State/Central Government departments, PSC, UPSC, NCVT, MHRD, DEC but later, he learned that the institution has no such recognition. Page 70 of the CD file contains advertisements in a news paper regarding M/s.Meridian Group of Institutions. There, it is stated: (1) students who have passed SSLC and +2 can apply for short term Paramedical courses approved by Central/State Governments. (2) the institution provides job opportunity abroad and Govt. certificates for those who completed the courses and (3) the institution ensures 100% placement though placement cell. Page 72 contains another advertisement through the Kerala Kaumudi with a photo of petitioner where it is stated that M/s.Meridian Group is running courses recognised by the Central/State Governments, PSC, UPSC and University and is conducting Health Inspector course recognised by the NCVT and PSC. 6. At page 80 there is the statement of President of the Kerala State Unemployed Service Society which formed a trust Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 10 :- by name 'National Centre for Labour and Learning (NACELL). He is seen to have told the investigating officer that the NACELL has got recognition as a non governmental organisation of Rashtriya Mahila Gosh which comes under social welfare departments of the Kerala and Central Governments and that for institutions which register with the NACELL he issued certificates to be distributed to the students. Accordingly he has issued certificates of affiliation of the NACELL to M/s.Meridian Group of Institutions at Kottarakara from 19.01.2009 to 19.11.2011 to run job oriented training. He says that no such permission was granted before 19.01.2009 and that no permission was also granted to conduct any institute at any place other than at Kottarakara. His institute has no authority to grant recognition for DMLT, DMRT etc. By “job oriented training”, it meant training of assistant courses. It has no connection with Paramedical courses (which petitioner is running) The further statement is that there is no Government recognition for the certificates issued by him. 7. There are also statement of witnesses (students who underwent study in various courses in the institutes of petitioner or their parents) who state that those students had undergone DRIT course, they were made to believe that the institution has Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 11 :- got Government recognition but, students did not got employment with the certificates as they had no Government recognition. 8. At page 110 of the CD file is the statement of the Vice Principal of ITI, Chandanathoppu. He stated that before joining there, he was a Trade Test Officer in the Industrial Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He would say that an institute which has recognition of NCVT has no authority to issue certificate to anybody else (ie.M/s.St.George Group of Institutions which is said to have NCVT recognition has no right or authority to issue any such certificate to any other institute). At page 176, there is a copy of the letter from the Sub Inspector, Kollam West Police Station to the Director, Directorate of Training, Thiruvananthapuram calling for information on the following: 1) whether an institute which has NCVT recognition (like M/s. St.George) can conduct its courses elsewhere (ie, off campus courses) 2) whether M/s.St.George has authority to give off campus certificate to another institute and, 3) whether the National Centre for Labour and Learning (NACELL) comes under the Directorate of Training. The reply is contained in page 204. It is in the following lines: Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 12 :- (1) The Institute which has got NCVT recognition (like M/s.St.George Group of Institutions) cannot conduct its courses in any other institute. (2 There is no authority to St.George Group of Institutions to issue off campus certificate (3) In the off campus certificate issued by M/s.St.George Group of Institutions (Annexure-A4) it has misused the words “DGET file No.” given to it. (4) Statement in the certificate issued by M/s.St/George Group of Institutions that it has recognition of NCVT, SCVT is fraudulent. (5) National Centre for Labour and Learning (NACELL) does not come under the Directorate of Training. 9. Page 177 of the CD file contains the copy of a letter from the Sub Inspector to the Director, Social Welfare Department calling for information whether the NACELL comes under the Social Welfare Department and whether the NACELL has authority to conduct Paramedical courses and issue certificates. The reply is contained in page 219, where it is stated that permission was given to the Kerala State Unemployed Service Society (which has formed the trust, the NACELL) to give job training under the institute of Kerala Social Welfare Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 13 :- Department and that the NACELL is not an institute coming under the Social Welfare Department. 10. It is argued by learned counsel that Annexure-A4, certificate is unauthorised that is irrelevant as petitioner is not running any off campus course. 11. That is not the issue. The issue is the allegation of cheating and forgery. I referred to the advertisements (allegedly) made by and on behalf of petitioner where it is stated that petitioner is conducting courses which have recognition of the Central and State Governments and the NCVT. I referred to the statement of Stephen S/o. George who is running M/s.St.George Group of Institutions that he has not issued any certificate to the petitioner for conducting any course at any place other than at Kottarakara. I also referred to the communications received from the departments of the State Government which reveal neither the NACELL nor St.George Group of Institutions has authority to issue any such certificate as above stated. It is in these circumstances that allegation of cheating under Sec.420 is incorporated alleging that petitioner made the students believe that he is running courses having the recognition of Central/State Governments and the NCVT. Annexure-A1 issued by the NACELL appears to be not sufficient to show that petitioner has got any Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 14 :- recognition for courses conducted by him from the State/Central Governments or the NCVT. It is also to be born in mind that even as per the statement of the President of Kerala State Unemployed Service Society which is running the NACELL, that institute has not authorised running of courses like DMRT, -- etc which are Paramedical courses (which courses petitioner is running) and that his institute is only granting permission to conduct job training which has no connection with Paramedical courses. In these circumstances the contention that allegation against petitioner are false or absurd and proceeding against petitioner should be terminated cannot be accepted. The statement Stephen S/o.George that he gave signed blank format of certificates to the petitioner (which were allegedly filled up by the petitioner) also requires probe. Matter requires investigation 12. So far as the de facto complainant in Crime No.1436 of 2010 of Sasthamcotta Police Station (involved in Crl.M.C.No.1070 of 2011) is concerned, learned counsel for the de facto complainant in that case submitted that the de facto complainant was duped to give a statement to the police. It is open to the de facto complainant to state those matters to the investigating officer in the course of investigation. Crl.M.C.Nos.1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2011 -: 15 :- 13. Grievance of the petitioner is against the then Sub Inspector of Kollam West Police Station who registered Crime No.988 of 2010. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the said officer is transferred to some other place (routine transfer) and his successor in office is conducting the investigation. 14. Now investigation is proceeding. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I do not find it necessary to interfere at this stage. But, I make it clear that investigating officers shall investigate into all aspects of the matter untrammelled by any observation or finding contained herein and submit final reports in the respective case as provided under law. I also make it clear that whatever finding or observation made in this order will be confined to the disposal of the criminal miscellaneous cases. If in any of the above cases final reports are filed, I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate plea/defence before the appropriate Court at the appropriate stage. Criminal miscellaneous cases are dismissed with the above observations. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-