Vineet Joshi v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr

ORDER %

27.05.2013 CRL.M. C.Nos. 796/2012, 821/2012 <6 1852/2012 page 1 of5 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

¶1Present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashingofthe complaintcase No. 18/2011 and orderdated24.12.2011by which the learned Special Judge ordered registrationof the FIR under Sections7 & 13 of POC Act as well as IPG againstthe personsfoundguilty.

¶2Complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was instituted by respondentNo.2-Deepak Gupta. It was allegedthat CBSE had issued a circular No.2 dated 21.02.2011 to prevent commercial activities in the schools. As per the circular, no commercial shops for sale of books, uniformsetc. couldbe operatedwithinthe school campus.Managementof SpringdaleSchool, Pusa Road, Delhi in contraventionthe said circular allowed some persons on contract to run shops of uniform, books and canteenin the school campus. The managementof the school in abuse of their officialpositionhad allowedpersonsto run the shops in the school campus and have causedmonetaryloss to the parentsof the students.The income earnedfrom the shops has not been reflectedin the accountbooks. The complainant further alleged that he had send a complaint dated

13.04.2011through speed post on 14.04.2011to Vineet Joshi, Chairman, CBSE to take appropriateaction.VineetJoshi with an intentionto provide benefit to the managementof the school did not discharge official and statutory duty and deputed R.K.Ghawla, Section Officer. R.K.Chawla forward the matter for seeking comments from the management. The complainantfurther alleged that he had also sent the complaintto Khan Ghand, Deputy Director of Education (G & ND) for taking appropriate action. He also did not discharge his official and statutory duties. He also deputedS.K.Nemi,DeputyEducationOfficer.Complaintwas sentto SHO, CRL.M.C.NOS.796/2012, 821/2012 <& 1852/2012 page 2 of5 r I X PS Anti Corruptionfor registrationofFIRbutno actionwas taken.

¶3The Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2011 directed SHO, AC Branchto registeran FIR and to investigatethe matter.Learnedcounsellor the petitionersurgedthatthere was no materialto orderregistrationofFIR. The impugnedordercannotbe sustainedand was passedwithoutapplication of mind mechanically.Counsel relied upon 'SubhkaranLuharuka & Anr. Vs. State', 170 (2010) DLT 516.

¶4Allegationsagainstthe petitionerswere that in violationof circular No.2 issued by CBSE, the managementof SpringdaleSchool allowedthe campusto be used for commercialactivitiesby permittingsale of books & uniforms etc. On receiptof the complaintfrom respondentNo.2-Deepak Gupta,CBSE constituteda fact findingcommitteeto verifythe pointsraised by him alleging'that the schoolwas runningon commercialbasis. The fact findingteam visitedDhaulaKuan Branchon 15.09.2011and surveyedthe sites of uniform stall, book stall and canteen. Similarly,a team visited Pusa Road Branch of the schooland conductedrequired investigation.It recorded that the allegationsof exploitationof parentscompellingthem to purchase uniforms and books from shops or stalls were baseless. It concludedthat there was no angle of commercializationof education on the part of managementin eitherof itsbranches.Since,theallegationswereunfounded, they recommendedto close the matter. Report of Puran Chand, Joint Secretary,COBSE& Member,FactFindingCommitteedated26.09.2011is on record. It further reveals that notices were issued to Springdale School and their reply dated 09.05.2011 is on record. Joseph Emmanuel,Deputy Secretary(Aff) submittedreplyto the complaintcaseto RamphalSingh, CRL.M.C.NOS. 796/2012, 821/2012 & 1852/2012 page 3 of5 fiA ACP, Anti CorruptionBranchvide letterdated27.06.2011.RamphalSingh, AC? also submitted status report. Pursuant to the enquiry into Deepak Gupta's complaintvide order dated 06.06.2011 it was concludedthat no offenceunder Section13 (1) (d) of POC Act and no offenceunder Sections 166/217/409 IPG were found to have been committed by anyone. At the most,the allegationswere of civilnatureand shouldbe undertheprovisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It further noted that the officers of Directorate of Education dischargedtheir duties and conductedappropriate enquiryinwhichcomplainant'sallegationswerefoundfalse and frivolous.

¶5Apparently,there was no material before the Trial Court to order registrationof FIR under Section 7 of POC Act against any individual. Petitioners Vineet Joshi, R.K.Chawla were public servants and in discharge of their official duties,they conductednecessaryenquiryinto the allegations levelled by the complainant.There are no specific allegationsthat they forged or fabricatedthe report after obtainingpecuniarybenefitsfrom the managementof the school.The allegationsagainstthe petitionersare based upon conjecturesand surmisesand no instancehas been givenwherebythe provisionsof POC Act were attracted.Even if there is derelictionsof duties on the part of CBSE to ensure complianceof its directions containedin circular No.2, no criminal liability is attracted for that. The complainantdid not disclose the fact of non compliance of the directions in the circular No.2. The complaint case does not disclosecommissionof any cognizableoffence.

¶6It is relevant to note that respondent No.2 did not opt to appear and contest despite service. Counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the photocopy of the order dated 23.09.2011 in civil suit regarding the issue in CRL.M. C.Nos. 796/2012, 821/2012 <& 1852/2012 page 4 of5 question, whereby the petitionersin the said suit No. 140/2010 opted to withdrawthe suit. The impugnedordercannotbe sustainedand is set aside. The petitions stand disposedof accordingly.

¶7It is made clear that the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take action as per rules/ law if there is any violationof terms of the directions contained in the circular against the defaulter.

¶8Pendingapplicationsalso standdisposedofbeinginfinctuous. 9^ >&P.GAR.G5 j. MAY 27, 2013 tr • CRL.M.C.NOS. 796/2012, 821/2012 & 1852/2012 page 5 of5

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 796/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.2793/2012 SPRINGDALES EDUCATION SOCIETY Petitioner + CRL.M.C. 821/2012 & CrI.M.A.Nos.2873-75/2012 VINEETJOSm Petitioner AND + CRL.M.C. 1852/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.6448/2012 R K CHAWLA ASSITANT SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Petitioner versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents in all petitions. Appearance : Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for the ipetitioners in Crl.M.C.Nos.821/2012 & 1852/2012 Mr.Vivek Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 796/2012. Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. ACP Ramphal Singh, A.C.Branch. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG