High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Similar News