IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21685 of 2008 Between: 1 Narayana Educational Society, Regd.No. 319 of 1996, Having its Regd. Office at Harinathpuram, Nellore, Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, Rep by its Secretary & Correspondent R. Koteswara Rao 2 Dr. P. Narayana, S/o. Subbaramaiah, Narayana Educational Society, R/o. Flat No. 304, Sharada Edifice, Vithalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3 R. Koteswara Rao, S/o. Adiseshaiah, Narayana Educational Society, R/o. Flat No. 304, Sharada Edifice, Vithalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Dept.of Higher Education, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Intermediate Education, Vidya Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad Rep by its Secretary 3 The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Narsingi, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus certiorari calling for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No. 250 of 2008, dt. 24-9-2008 of Narsingi Police Station, Narsingi, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, RR District and to quash the same as illegal, vitiated by legal mala ﬁdes and initiated with oblique and collateral purposes and it is blatant abuse of process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents : KUM.C.SINDHU KUMARI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21685 OF 2008 ORDER : The 1st petitioner herein is an educational society which claims to have been running several junior colleges all over the State. The 2nd petitioner is the President, whereas the 3rd petitioner is the Secretary and Correspondent of the 1st petitioner society. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Cr.No.250 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008 on the ﬁle of Narsingi P.S., Narsingi, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District and to quash the same as illegal and vitiated by legal mala fides. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Ramachandra Rao appearing for the petitioners and Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent. The material on record shows that a complaint was lodged by the Regional Inspection Oﬃcer (Twin Cities), Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, dated 24.09.2008 alleging that the 1st respondent society was running a junior college unauthorisedly at the Building No.6-15 (Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3) in Sy.No.11/5 of Hydershahkote Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District without permission of the Board of Intermediate Education. It was also alleged that the students of Narayana Junior College, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad were also taking classes in the said premises violating the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the A.P. Education Act and that the management was also running a hostel within the premises without obtaining the prior permission from the concerned authority and that the said hostel was in unhygienic condition and more students were kept in one room without proper facilities. On the basis of the said complaint, Cr.No.250 of 2008 was registered on 24.9.2008 on the ﬁle of the 3rd respondent against the petitioners herein and the same was submitted before the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District. The registration of the above said FIR is challenged in this writ petition contending that since the complaint did not reﬂect any contravention of the provisions of Section 20 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’) thereby making out an oﬀence under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, any proceedings in pursuance of the said crime are totally illegal and unjust and nothing but abuse of process of the Court. While reiterating the above contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that even the allegation that the hostel was found to be in unhygienic condition and more students were kept in one room without providing proper facilities/amenities cannot be taken as a ground to initiate prosecution under Section 20 (4) of the Act since the said allegations with regard to the hostel have nothing to do with the 1st petitioner educational institution. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the FIR is liable to be quashed. On a careful consideration of the material placed before this Court as well as the relevant provisions under the Act, I am of the opinion that the interference by this Court with the investigation in Cr.No.250 of 2008 of Narsingi P.S. is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Section 20 of A.P. Education Act deals with the permission to establish educational institutions. Sub- section (4) of the Section 20 of the Act is the penal provision which provides that any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 20 shall be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with ﬁne which shall not be less than Rs.3,000/- but which may extend to Rs.50,000/-. Sub-section (4) also mandates that no educational institution shall be established on and from the commencement of A.P. Education Act except in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It is not in dispute that an oﬀence under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. As already noticed above, the allegations in the complaint dated, 24.09.2008, included that a junior college is being run by the 1st respondent at Hydershahkote Village without permission of the Board of Intermediate Education and that the students of Junior College at Ashoknagar are also taking classes in the said premises. The further allegation is that the hostel being run by the 1st petitioner in the said premises is without prior permission from the concerned authority and that the same is in unhygienic condition. Section 2 (18) of the Act deﬁned educational institution as recognized school, special institution or other institution including boarding home or hostel attached to it by whatever name called. In view of the said deﬁnition, the allegation that the hostel is being run unauthorisedly and contrary to law, if established would make the petitioners punishable for an offence under Section 20 (4) of the Act. Moreover, on a combined reading of Sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 20 of the Act and particularly sub-section (3) (c) (ii), it is clear that it is mandatory for an educational institution to satisfy all the requirements laid down by the A.P. Education Act and the Rules and the Orders made thereunder. Hence, the allegations in the complaint namely that the junior college established by the 1st petitioner society is not possessing permission of the Board of Intermediate Education and that the junior college at Hydershahkote village is also accommodating the students of junior college at Ashoknagar, if established would amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the person who lodged the impugned FIR is not competent to do so under the law or to institute prosecution under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act. The law is well settled that the power under Article 226 to quash the criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the Complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. It is also a settled principle of law that this Court will not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the Complaint in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to hold that the case on hand is such an extreme case warranting interference by this Court at the stage of investigation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall proceed with Cr.No.250 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Narsingi P.S. following due process of law without being inﬂuenced by any of the observations made in this order with regard to allegations in the complaint. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2008 gbs