MANU/SC/1472/2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3383 of 2018)

Decided On: 13.12.2018

Appellants: Naman Singh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha

ORDER

Navin Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellants are aggrieved by the denial to quash the criminal prosecution against them Under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No. 22/2018 dated 31.01.2018.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that no objection certificate has been obtained from the Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur for establishment of the three-year Law course. Affiliation has also been granted by the University. The Appellants have also deposited a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- with the Bar Council of India and await permission from it for starting the law course. The question of any fraudulent misrepresentation by the Appellants, persuading students to take admission in an unauthorised institution simply does not arise. Several students have taken admission in full awareness of the existent facts with no grievances and have sworn affidavits to that effect.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Appellants by misrepresentation and cheating have persuaded Respondent No. 4 and others to take admission in an unrecognised institution. There are several students who are aggrieved. In any event, such enquiries cannot be held in a quashing application by examining the defence of the Appellants. The impugned order merits no interference.

5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and are satisfied that the application deserves to be allowed, though on different grounds. Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unnao on 31.01.2018 that she had been duped into taking admission in an unrecognised institution. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the very same day, without furthermore, directed the police to register a first information report. The only question for our consideration is whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was competent to do so, and whether such an F.I.R. can be said to have been registered in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

6. Section 154 of the Code provides for registration of a first information report at the instance of an informant, reduced into writing and signed by the person giving it. Section 154(3) stipulates that in the event of a refusal on part of an officer in charge of a police station to record such information, it may be sent in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police who will direct investigation into the same.

7. Section