Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 Date of Decision: 27.1.2009 Narender Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Pawan Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC.. seeking quashing of FIR No. 197 dated 1.6.2006 registered at Police Station Old Faridabad, under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC. FIR has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P14. It has been stated in the FIR that Ajay Nagar, student of I.M.T. had come along with Sandeep Kumar and Satish Kumar to the College for filling the form of re-appear. Sandeep and Satish were also student of same College. There he learnt that exams of Madurai Kamraj University are going on under the supervision of Narender Shastri, the Director of Law College. He found that one boy sitting on the third floor was doing the paper of Public Administration on 1.6.2006. This paper, Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 2 according to allegations in the FIR was scheduled two days before i.e. 29.5.2006. Anil, Librarian, was found providing help to the examinee by providing answer sheet and question paper. Yogesh Kumar, student of fourth class of College, was also providing additional sheet to him for completing the paper. It was learnt that this was done by Anil, Librarian, for monetary gains. It was further averred that the Distance Education papers of Madurai Kamraj University are held under the supervision of Narender Shasti, Director of Law College. In the petition, it has been stated that two Institutions namely National Institute of Law and Institute of Management & Technology, both at Faridbad are affiliated to the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. It has been further averred that Distance Learning Programme at I.M.T. Campus is being run by Adhiyamaan Educational and Research Institute, Faridabad and Ravinder Nath Rajotiya is the Programme Officer of Madurai Kamraj University for the Study Center in Faridabad and S.K. Jindal is the Programme Director and the petitioner has nothing to do with the Distance Learning Programme. It has been further stated that the Petitioner had left this Institute on 24.3.2006 and had no concern with the affairs of the Institute. It has been further averred that petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 376 IPC against S.K. Jindal on 5.7.2005 for committing rape of Maya wife of Mahipal, who was Peon of the Institute. A number of instances have been given to show that complainant is inimically deposed against the petitioner. Mr. Bedi has placed reliance upon various FIRs annexed with the present petition. Reliance has been further placed upon information Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 3 sought under the Right of Information Act, 2005, from the Madurai Kamraj University wherein it has been stated that Ravinder Nath Rajotiya was Incharge of the Examination Center being a Chief Superintendent. On a question asked to the State counsel as to what material is with the Investigating Agency to show involvement of the petitioner in conduct of examination whether he was appointed as Invigilator or Superintendent of the Examination, Mr. S.S. Mor, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that he was appointed as Director of Law College, on 15.6.2005. On a further question asked that in what capacity, Law College of which petitioner was Director was concerned with Distance Education Learning Programme affiliated to Madurai Kamraj University, Mr. Mor has failed to show any document. He has stated that there is only a disclosure statement of Examinee Priya Darshi in which in the last line it has been stated that accused Anil had introduced him to accused Narender Singh. Settled legal position is that only that portion of disclosure statement is admissible which leads to recovery. In the present case, no recovery has been effected rather question paper, answer book and I- card were presented by the Examinee to the Police Officer. Even if it is taken that disclosure led to the recovery, only that portion of disclosure statement is admissible which led to recovery and anything else said in this disclosure statement cannot be read. Mr. Mor very candidly and fairly stated that except this piece of evidence, there is no other incriminating evidence with the prosecution in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-47116 of 2007 4 In the present case, since report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, this Court will be hesitant to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Two fold contentions of Mr. Bedi are that there is no admissible incriminating evidence except as stated by counsel for the State, and disclosure statement portion which incriminate petitioner is inadmissible, therefore, this Court should quash the proceedings. It has been further submitted that definition of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC spell essential ingredients that somebody should be deceived to deliver any property to any person. As in present case no property has been delivered or promised to be delivered, therefore, no offence of cheating is made out, according to the counsel. Mr. Mor has stated that once report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, counsel for the petitioner has got a liberty to raise all the arguments before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. There is no doubt in my mind that in case such arguments are raised before the trial Court, the trial Court shall examine these arguments and find if there is any incriminating evidence or not or whether ingredients of offence are made out or not. Needless to say trial Court shall pass detailed speaking order, taking into consideration arguments raised. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 27, 2009 “DK”