Allegations and Investigation Indicate Prima Facie Commission of Offences; FIR Not to be Quashed – Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds FIR Against Education Centre

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against organizers of an educational centre accused of fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the accreditation of an educational course.

The petitioners, Amit Jindal and Naveen Jindal, approached the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash the FIR registered against them for cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC). The FIR was lodged by Tara Rani who alleged that the petitioners falsely represented that the ETT (Elementary Teacher Training) course offered by Singhania University was recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

Tara Rani claimed she was misled into completing the ETT course, which subsequently affected her employment opportunities as a government teacher. Her application was rejected by the Selection Board on the grounds that the university was not recognized by NCTE, a fact she confirmed through an RTI application.

Justice Deepak Gupta of the High Court noted that the allegations and evidence presented during the investigation suggest a prima facie case against the petitioners. He referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, which delineate the circumstances under which FIRs may be quashed.

Misrepresentation of Accreditation: The court found substantial evidence that the petitioners had falsely advertised the NCTE recognition of the ETT course which misled the complainant and other students.

Response to Petitioners’ Defense: The petitioners argued that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process intended to harass them. However, the court dismissed these claims, indicating that such defenses should be considered during the trial rather than at the stage of quashing the FIR.

Inadequate Disclosure by the University: The court highlighted that Singhania University had not provided satisfactory evidence during the investigation to prove that it had informed students of the lack of NCTE accreditation at the time of their admission.

Decision: The High Court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for quashing the FIR as established by the Bhajan Lal guidelines. The allegations, if proven, constituted a cognizable offense warranting further investigation and trial.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Amit Jindal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another