Supreme Court quashes FIR against relatives and employee in Nursing College Admission Scam: Maneesha Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 322 (09 April 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 09 April 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 322
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can family members and employees of an educational institution be held criminally liable for the institution’s alleged wrongdoings, simply by virtue of their relationship or employment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a nursing college accused of admitting students beyond its sanctioned capacity. The Court quashed the FIR against the relatives and an employee of the college, emphasizing that mere association with the institution is not sufficient to establish criminal culpability. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint against the School of Nursing and Paramedical College, Gorakhpur. The college was initially permitted to admit 60 students, but this was later reduced to 40. Despite the reduction, the college admitted 60 students. When the results of 20 students were withheld, they discovered they had been illegally admitted. Subsequently, several complaints were filed, including one by Respondent No. 2. Based on these complaints, an FIR was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, bearing Case Crime No. 18 of 2015. The FIR alleged that the college management had fraudulently induced students to take admission against non-sanctioned seats by promising them that the admission was against a sanctioned seat and collecting huge amounts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, who are relatives and an employee of the college, filed a petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court rejected their petition, stating that the defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage and that the appellants had the alternative remedy to apply for discharge under Section 239, Section 227 or Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court, on 30th September 2022, issued an interim order restraining any coercive action against the appellants.

Legal Framework

The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 419 (punishment for cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Supreme Court also considered Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that they were not involved in the day-to-day management of the institute.
• They contended that they were neither office bearers nor entrusted with any management duties.
• They submitted that the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings against them.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that one of the appellants is the wife of the Director, another is the sister of the Director and daughter of the Manager, and the third appellant is an employee of the institute.
• They submitted that the appellants were involved in the illegalities committed by the institute.
• The State also argued that since the charge sheet has already been filed, the appellants could apply for discharge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the appellants, who were relatives and an employee of the college, should be quashed, given their alleged lack of direct involvement in the management and the alleged illegalities.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the FIR, even if taken at face value, should disclose sufficient material to constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged.
• Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]: The Supreme Court cited this case to reiterate that the High Court’s power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not restricted to the stage of the FIR and can be exercised even after the charge sheet is filed.
• Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that even if the charge-sheet is filed, the High Court can examine whether the offences alleged are prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc.
• G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court.
• Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. [(2013) 10 SCC 591]: The Court cited this case to support the view that the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to the stage of the FIR.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* to emphasize that the FIR, even if taken at face value, should disclose sufficient material to constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. It stated 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) as the allegations made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused.
• The court relied on Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]* to reiterate that the High Court’s power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not restricted to the stage of the FIR and can be exercised even after the charge sheet is filed.
• The court relied on Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59]* to emphasize that even if the charge-sheet is filed, the High Court can examine whether the offences alleged are prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc.
• The court relied on G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636]* to reiterate that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court.
• The court relied on Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. [(2013) 10 SCC 591]* to support the view that the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to the stage of the FIR.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific allegations against the appellants in the FIR. The Court emphasized that mere familial or employment ties to the institution’s management were insufficient to establish criminal liability. The Court was also concerned about the potential for abuse of process if criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against individuals without any direct involvement in the alleged offenses. The Court noted that the High Court had failed to even refer to the averments in the FIR and mechanically dismissed the petition by observing that the appellants herein can file an application for discharge.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed on individuals merely due to their association with an organization or their familial ties with its management. The Court emphasized that there must be specific allegations and evidence of direct involvement in the criminal activity to warrant prosecution. The Court observed, “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.” The Court also stated, “Unless some material was placed on record to show that the appellants herein were in-charge of 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.” The Court further noted, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere familial or employment ties with an organization’s management are insufficient to establish criminal liability.
• Specific allegations and evidence of direct involvement in the criminal activity are necessary for prosecution.
• High Courts have the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even after a charge sheet has been filed, to prevent abuse of process.
• The Court will not embark 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.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of the High Court and set aside the FIR bearing Case Crime No. 18 of 2015 and the consequential charge sheet filed against the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal liability cannot be imposed on individuals solely based on their relationship or employment with an organization accused of wrongdoing. There must be specific allegations and evidence of direct involvement in the criminal activity to warrant prosecution. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to harass individuals who are not directly implicated in the commission of an offense. This case also reiterates the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of specific allegations and direct involvement in criminal activity before initiating prosecution. The Court quashed the FIR against the relatives and employee of the nursing college, emphasizing that mere association with the institution is not sufficient to establish criminal culpability. This judgment serves as a reminder that criminal law should not be used to harass individuals without clear evidence of their direct involvement in the alleged offenses.