1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1572 of 2010 Dr Manoj v. State of Maharashtra and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr F.T. Mirza, Advocate for applicant Mr M.K. Pathan, APP for respondent no.1 Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 13th July 2011 1. By this application, applicant is seeking to quash and set aside FIR No. 107/2010 registered on 17.8.2010 with Police Station, Karanja, District Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Complainant Madan Thaoru Rathor lodged report dated 16.8.2010 with Police Station, Karanja (Lad) to the effect that present applicant and his wife Dr Varsha obtained from him Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- and issued two receipts to secure admission to 1st year BAMS for his son Rahul in the 1st batch of academic session 2008-09. Complainant Madan was further required to pay Rs. 35,000/-; Rs. 8300/- and Rs. 75,000/- on different counts. His son Rahul also started attending classes. However, instead of giving him admission for the academic session 2008-09, Rahul was given admission in the 2 next academic session i.e. 2009-10. Thus, the complainant was cheated and one precious academic session of his son Rahul went waste. On realising this when complainant went to the accused persons, they threatened him that his son would lose practical marks if he made complaint against them and abused him in filthy language. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that money obtained from the complainant was to secure his son’s admission in the academic session 2009-10 only and not for the academic session 2008-09 and, therefore, there was no cheating or waste of one year of student Rahul. He placed on record copy of affidavit dated 23.7.2009 sworn in by Rahul, son of complainant to the effect that after he passed 12th standard examination in 2007-08, he could not prosecute further education due to ill health in order to canvass that even otherwise, owing to bad health condition, student Rahul could not have prosecuted his studies in the academic session 2008-09 even if admission would have been given to him. 4. Learned APP for respondent no.1 opposed the submission and contended that a show of admission was made by the accused and factually, name of student Rahul was not forwarded to the University of Health Sciences for enrolment in the academic session 2008-09. He submits that there is material in the form of money receipts etc. to indicate that the accused have prima facie committed offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. He further submits that the investigation is 3 almost complete and charge-sheet would soon be filed. 5. Considering the fact that the accused issued receipts indicating admission for the academic session 2008-09 and the fact that student Rahul attended classes for some months and appeared for sectional exam also, contention of the applicant that he and his wife are falsely implicated in the crime cannot be accepted. Inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare case. There is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. Needless to say, if the applicant is so advised, he may file application for discharge before the trial Court. It is made clear that in the event such application is made, the learned trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law on its own merit. JUDGE joshi