Maneesha Yadav vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 322 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8922 of 2022] MANEESHA YADAV AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 3698 of 2023] J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP(CRIMINAL) NO. 8922 OF 2022 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at rd Allahabad dated 23 August 2022, rejecting the petition filed by the present appellants for quashing of the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’). 3. The complainant had filed the complaint that the initial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.25 12:18:06 IST Reason: permission for providing admission was granted to Raj 1 School of Nursing and Paramedical College, Gorakhpur (for short, ‘the said institute’) for sixty seats but subsequently the permission was reduced to forty seats. However, in spite of reduction of number of seats, the said institute had admitted sixty students. When the result of twenty students was not published, the said students came to know about the fact that twenty students were illegally admitted and as such the complaints came to be filed by some of those students. One of such complaints was filed by Respondent No.2 herein. On the basis of such complaints, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.18 of 2015 came to be registered in Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. 4. The averments made in the FIR are that one Dr. Rajaram Yadav is the Manager of the said institute, Dr. Abhishek Yadav is the Director and Dr. C. Prasad is the Principal of the said institute. The averments are that sixty seats were advertised in the newspapers and the complainant was given allurement that her admission was against a sanctioned strength and as such she was induced to pay a huge amount. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 2 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 5. Subsequently, the complainant realized that her admission was not against the sanctioned strength. As such, she lodged the complaint alleging therein that she was induced to take admission in the college by giving an impression that her admission was against a sanctioned seat and further induced her to pay a huge amount. As such, it was averred that the accused persons had cheated the complainant. 6. The three petitioners (appellants herein), invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), filed a petition for quashing of the said FIR on the ground that no case was made out against them. The High Court, while referring to the various judgments of this Court, observed that the defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The High Court further observed that the petitioners (appellants herein) had an alternative remedy to apply for discharge under Section 239 or 227 or 245 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court, therefore refused to entertain the petition th and rejected it in limine . This Court, vide order dated 30 September 2022, issued interim direction restraining the 3 respondents from taking any coercive steps against the appellants herein. 7. We have heard Shri Prem Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Ravindra Kumar Raizada, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 8. Shri Prem Prakash, learned counsel, submits that the appellants herein are not at all involved with the said institute; they are neither the office bearers nor entrusted with the duties of the day-to-day management of the said institute. It is therefore submitted that the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings against the appellants herein. 9. Shri Raizada, per contra, submits that one of the appellants is the wife of the Director and the second appellant is the sister of the Director and daughter of the Manager and the third appellant is an employee of the said institute. It is submitted that, as such the appellants herein were not involved in the illegalities committed by the said institute. It is further submitted that in any case, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the appellants can very well apply for discharge. 10. No doubt that at the stage of quashing of the 4 proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to take into consideration the defence of the accused. However, the FIR, even if taken at its face value, should disclose the material which would be sufficient to constitute the ingredients of the offences for which the FIR was lodged. 11. Taken at its face value, the averments made in the FIR against the appellants herein are that Smt. Maneesha Yadav is the wife of Dr. Abhishek Yadav. Dr. Poonam Yadav is the sister of Dr. Abhishek Yadav and daughter of Dr. Rajaram Yadav. Insofar as Shobhita Nandan Yadav i.e. appellant No.3 is concerned, the averment is that he is an employee of the said institute. Apart from that, there is not a single line in the entire FIR, which would show as to how the aforesaid appellants are concerned with the management of the said institute. No specific role of inducement by the complainant is attributed to any of the appellants herein. Merely because the appellants are close relatives of the Manager or Director of the said institute, cannot be a ground to involve them in criminal proceedings. Unless some material was placed on record to show that the appellants herein were in-charge of 5 the affairs of the said institute or had any role to play in the management of the institute or were involved in inducing the complainant and other students to give them admission against the unrecognized seats; in our view, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law. 12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. 1 Bhajan Lal and Others :

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1990 INSC 363 6 cie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first infor- mation report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investiga- tion by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec- tion 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evi- dence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any of- fence and make out a case against the ac- cused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inher- ently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just con- clusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the pro- ceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned 7

would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value, do not disclose the commission 8 of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). 14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State 2 (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another :

2 (2019) 11 SCC 706 : 2018 INSC 1060 9

10 15. Insofar as the reasoning of the High Court that the appellants herein can file an application for discharge is concerned, this Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that merely because the charge-sheet is filed cannot be a ground for the High Court to not invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of justice and would result only in the harassment of the appellants herein when there is no material against them. In our view, this would be abdicating the jurisdiction vested with the High Court. 16. We find that, in the present case, the High Court has not even referred to the averments made in the FIR but has mechanically dismissed the petition by observing that the appellants herein can file an application for discharge. 17. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against them and may result in the abuse of process of law. 18. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is quashed and set aside and the FIR bearing Case Crime No.18 of 2015 and consequential charge-sheet filed against the appellants herein shall also stand quashed 11 and set aside. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP(CRIMINAL) NO. 3698 OF 2023

arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8922 of 2022, the present

by the High Cout of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17002 of 2022 is quashed and set aside and the pending proceedings qua the appellants herein filed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI) ..............................................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) NEW DELHI; APRIL 09, 2024 . 12