Criminal Misc. No.M-14059 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-14059 of 2008 Date of decision : 27.11.2008 Abhishek .....Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for respondent No. l to 3. S. D. ANAND, J. For enabling the appropriate appreciation of the controversy, it would be useful to indicate the allegations of the petitioner in the first instance. The petitioner, a 10+2 pass out son of Jalandhar based Doctor couple, came across an advertisement in the issue dated 3.6.2006 of the Tribune. The advertiser therein (Rishi Singh by name) was contacted by the petitioner and his father telephonically. Rishi Singh afore-mentioned assured that the petitioner could be got admitted into the MBBS against NRI quota, on payment of US $ 75,000/- or equivalent thereof in Indian currency. Rishi Singh further made it clear that the petitioner shall not have to appear in the PMT test. In response thereto, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to Rishi Singh as advance payment. Thereafter, Rishi Singh obtained the admission card and other relevant documents (issued by the University) from the petitioner on the premise that those were Criminal Misc. No.M-14059 of 2008 -2- **** required for completing necessary formalities. Rishi Singh afore-mentioned remained in telephonic touch with the petitioner and his father and kept on assuring them that the petitioner would be admitted into a Medical College under the NRI quota. It subsequently came to the notice of the petitioner that one Sanjay son of R.D.Parsad had been caught impersonating him at the Centre No. 421 of 2006 PMT examination. It further came to the notice that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. The investigating agency has presently filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. The aggrieved petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 10128-M of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2008 with a direction to the SSP UT., Chandigarh to look into the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. SSP marked the enquiry to DSP Shri J.S.Khera, Sector 36, Chandigarh who never associated the petitioner with the enquiry. The petitioner filed the present petition with a view to obtain a direction to respondent no.1 to transfer the enquiry from SSP, Chandigarh to any other equivalent rank officer or to SSP, Mohali or to SSP, Panchkula. The grievance of the petitioner is that SSP, Chandigarh was trying to shield the main accused Rishi Singh. The precise grievance of the petitioner presently is that the Investigating Agency is wrongly prosecuting him and has left out the main accused Rishi Singh. In the context of the above indicated averment, the counter is to the effect that petitioner is open to the allegation of varying his stand. In that context, attention of this court is invited to Annexure R-1, a copy of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The following Criminal Misc. No.M-14059 of 2008 -3- **** averment appears in the course of that application:- “That applicant/petitioner being a meritorious student has been working hard for his examination as he himself appeared in the examination. After completing his paper, the applicant handed over the sheet to the Superintendent/Invigilator and came out of the examination. In the state of excitement, the applicant forgot his roll No. on his table itself. After reaching the bus stand he realized his mistake and as he was aware of the fact that his roll no. would be required for counselling purposes, he rushed back to his centre but found nothing there. Then the applicant/petitioner went back to Jalandhar hoping that he would get a duplicate admit card.” It is, thus, apparent that petitioner had earlier taken up a stance that he did appear at the indicated examination. In the earlier stance taken up by the petitioner, it was never indicated who impersonated him. In the face of the above fact, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would retain liberty to file an appropriate plea for reinvestigation before the learned Trial Court. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate plea before the learned Trial Court which shall dispose of the plea, if raised, without being at all influenced by the observations made in course of the order by this Court. November 27, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE