1. Dr. Rajendra B. Lal, Vice Chancellor, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, a Deemed University, (hereinafter referred to as AAI) and it's Registrar, Prof. A.K.A Lawrence have approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C invoking it's inherent power, through the instant application, with the prayer that proceeding of Criminal Case Number 406 of 2006, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Rajendra B. Lal, under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, and 474 I.P.C, P.S Naini, District Allahabad pending against them in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 5, Allahabad and the concerned charge sheet of crime number 312 of 2005, under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, and 474 I.P.C, P. S Naini district Allahabad be quashed.

2. Briefly sketched the prosecution allegations against the applicants are that an article, Annexure No. 2, was published in weekly “OUT LOOK” on 6th Sept. 2005, wherein it was mentioned that AAI was running courses without approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The said article surcharged and infuriated the students who, on 29th and 30th August, 2005, went on destructive demonstration and rampage so much so that Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) was deployed in AAI, which was closed sine-die. The incident was followed by lodging of a FIR, annexure No. 3, by informant respondent No. 2, Atul Singh, on 31-8-2005 at 4.15 p.m at police station Naini as crime number 312 of 2005, under Sections 419, 420 IPC.

3. Registration of FIR commenced the investigation and I.O after coping GD entry recorded informant's statement, annexure No. 7. Subsequently he inspected the spot, prepared site plan and spot inspection note and thereafter recorded statements of Pradeep Singh, Mohd. Ashafaq, Mukesh Singh, Sanjai Pandey, vide annexures No. 8 to 11. To obviate rigour of arrest in the aforesaid crime, the applicants, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, praying for quashing of the said FIR lodged against them vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9280 of 2005, Dr. Rajendra B. Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which writ petition was disposed off by this Court on 16-9-2005, annexure No. 5, by making observations that “University can not be compelled to seek and obtain prior approval under AICTE Act before starting new course or programme in technical education”. The arrest of the petitioners in that writ petition was stayed by this Court till submission of charge sheet.

4. Thereafter conducting further investigation and concluding the same the I.O submitted charge sheet, annexure No. 6, under the aforementioned offences Ss. 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, and 474 I.P.C, against the applicants in Court on 31.8.2005, on the basis of which Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, took cognizance of the offences on 31-1-2006 and summoned the applicants. Subsequently vide annexure No. 22 the I.O applied for issuance of non bailable warrants against the applicants. It was at this stage that the applicants have filed the present Criminal Misc. Application for quashing of criminal case and charge sheet against them.

5. On the above narrated facts I have heard Sri S.N Verma, Sri Ravi Kant and Sri G.S Chaturvedi, all learned Senior counsel in support of this application and Sri J.S Sengar and Sri Rahul Sripat and the learned AGA in opposition and have perused the affidavit and appended annexures.

6. All the learned senior counsels vehemently harangued that the charge sheet is mala fide and does not disclose any offence being committed by the applicants. The courses are run by the AAI, which is a Deemed University. A Division Bench had held that a Deemed University does not require any approval from the UGC and AICTE to start a new course. University Grant Commission, in short UGC, cannot stop any university from granting degrees. UGC is only a “supervisory Body” and it “cannot enter into any feat by asking Universities or Deemed Universities to seek it's approval for starting new courses “urged learned counsel. Apex Court has held AAI to be a premier and renowned institution of the country in the case of St. Stephen'S College v. University Of Delhi: (1992) 1 SCC 558 : (AIR 1992 SC 1630) submitted learned counsel. Relying upon various provisions of University Grant Commission Act. 1956 (Act No. 3 of 1956) it is contended that the function of the UGC is to take steps for promotion and co-ordination of University education and determination and maintenance of standard of teaching, examination and research in University with other fiscal powers. Referring to Section 22 it is submitted that it lies within the province of the University to grant degrees and in that aspect further relying upon a letter dated 28-8-2001, annexure No. 15, it is submitted that Chairman of UGC himself wrote that Universities are permitted to award degrees through their Distant Education programmes conducted through their established centers. State of U.P also had no objection in running Distant Education Programme, by AAI vide annexure No. 16. contended learned counsel.

7. Through another affidavit filed subsequently it was averred and contended that UGC appointed a high powered committee consisting of Dr. Gumashe, Sri M.C Sharma and Sri A.K Garg to look into for ex-post-facto recognition of various programmes run by AAI and after the report of the said committee the said recognition was accorded on 29-8-2307 by Distant Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University vide it's letter No. F.DEC/A-200/06 CC:A2-AAI-4/545.0 annexure No. 7 to that affidavit. It is further argued that the said approval by Distant Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University was countenanced by UGC in it's meeting held on 24-9-2007. It was also argued that various orders have been passed by this Court by both of it's benches at Lucknow and at Allahabad, in various Civil Misc. Writ Petitions and in view of these orders, which are referred to in paras 6 and 8, of the subsequent affidavit now, no offence can be said to have been committed by the applicants. Relying upon paras 9 and 10 of that affidavit and relying upon annexure No. 7 it is argued that since now ex-post facto approval has been granted by the UGC and therefore the cause of lis does not survive at all. Concludingly it is submitted that the instant Criminal Misc. Application be allowed and the impugned proceeding and me charge sheet pending against the applicants in the lower Court be quashed.

8. Learned counsels for the informant respondent and the learned AGA initially contested the case on it's merits and contended that since the charge sheet has been submitted the applicants should be relegated to the Magistrate to claim discharge and raise their contentions there. Disputed questions of facts should not be adjudicated by this Court on the basis of affidavits and therefore this application deserves dismissal being merit less they retorted. They further contended that AAI played with the careers of it's students by imparting education in courses which were not recognized by UGC and AICTE. They further urged that FIR and charge sheet discloses commission of cognizable offences and hence the prosecution must be afforded opportunity to substantiate it's allegations and it should not be scuttled at it's very inception. However, after filing of fresh affidavit appending various orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions and the grant of ex-post-facto approval by UGC to various courses run by AAI that they also agreed that now, since ex-post - facto approval has been granted, no offence can be said to have been committed by the two applicants and therefore allowing the prosecution to go on will be a futile exercise. They also did not dispute that AAI is a Deemed University and it had acquired such a status on 15-3-2000. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel did not dispute the said position.

9. I have considered the arguments raised by contesting sides. A joint reading of Sections 2(h), 2(i) and 10(k) of AICTE Act 1987 couple with Sections 2(f) and Section 3 of UGC Act 1956 clearly indicates that University includes Deemed University as well and Universities and Deemed Universities are not covered with in the purview of “Technical Institution” and approval of AICTE is required by the Technical Institutions only to start new courses or programmes. Universities and Deemed Universities do not require such an approval. For clarity of this position Sections 2(h), 2(i) and 10(k) of AICTE Act are referred to below:—

“Section 2(h). “Technical Institution” means an institution, not being a university, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institution as the Central Government may, in consultation with the council, by notification in the official gazette, declare as technical institution”.

Section 2(i). “University” means a university defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of that Act.

Section 10(k). Grant of approval for starting new technical institution and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with agencies concerned”.

Section 2(f) and Section 3 of UGC Act are also reproduced below:—

“Section 2(f). “University” means a university established or incorporated by or under the Central Act, a Provincial Act or State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the university concerned, be recognized by the commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.

Section 3. The Central Government may, on the advice of the commission, declare by notification in the official gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a university, shall be deemed to be a university for the purposes of this Act, on such a declaration being made all provision of this Act shall apply to such as if it were a university within the meaning of clause (1) of Section 2.”

10. Thus University and Deemed Universities stands at par so far as application of UCG Act and AICTE Act are concerned. It is thus clear that AAI, which is a Deemed University, is conferring degrees in various disciplines legally and not unauthorizedly. For the Universities to run it's courses only the approval of it's syndicate (Academic Council and Executive Council) are required. (See Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education : (2001) 8 SCC 616 : (AIR 2001 SC 2861).

11. Cutting short the controversy, since now the courses run by AAI have got ex-post-facto approval by UGC and Distant Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, in my humble view, allowing the prosecution of the applicants to go on will be a futile exercise. Further from the material collected in the case diary, it is difficult to conclude that any offence has been committed by the applicants. Criminal liability is a strict liability and therefore to charge any body with offence require that there must be, at least, grave suspicion against him for committing an offence. There is no dispute that AAI is a Deemed University and therefore it can grant degrees. A Division Bench of this Court while staying the arrest of the applicants in the writ petition filed by them has observed that prior approval of AICTE is not required for Universities and Deemed Universities for running new technical courses. The said observation of the Division Bench is quoted in para 28 of the affidavit appended along with this application and also annexed as annexure No. 5 and relevant portions thereof are as follows:—

“From the co joint reading of both the sections it is clear that the university has been kept out of purview of the aforesaid Act. The university can not be compelled to seek and obtain prior approval under AICTE Act before starting any new course or programme in technical.”

12. Further it transpires that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38643 of 2004 Abdul Latif v. The Board of Directors, Allahabad Agriculture Institute, this Court has refused to direct AAI not to run courses without approval of the AICTE and UGC by dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein.

13. Further, looking to the various penal sections under which charge sheet has been submitted by the police it is perceptibly clear that the indispensable ingredients to make out offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200 IPC against the applicants are missing in the whole case diary. There is no mens rea involved in the whole allegations and it seems that the investigating officer without looking into the correct legal positions, in a hurry, charge sheeted the applicants. For making out referred offences what is sine qua non is culpable intention and not merely technical non-observance of civil provisions. Without loathing this judgment and making it voluminous, only this much is observed that there was no stage of giving evidence and therefore the question of giving false evidence or fabricating it or using it knowing it to be false does not arise at all. Signing of certificates in rightful claim of authority also can-not be implanted with any mens rea to commit offence. It is the case of AAI that they are legally entitled to confer the degrees imparted by them and for it approval of AICTE and UGC is not required to be taken.

14. In such a view the indispensable ingredients of intentional knowledge that the certificate is false, as is required under Sections 197 and 200 IPC, are also conspicuously missing in the whole case diary on the basis of which the applicants are being sought to be prosecuted. Since there is not intention to cheat from the very inception of the course, there does not arise any question of making out any offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC against the applicants. Falsification and manufacturing of false documents as is required for making out offences under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 474 IPC are also missing in the whole case diary. Neither the record of Court or public register nor any valuable security are involved in the prosecution allegations and the evidences collected during investigation and hence there does not arise any question of making out offences under Section 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC. So also there is no forgery committed by the applicants for the purposes of cheating to charge them with offences under Section 468 and 471 IPC. The allegations levelled by the prosecution are that AAI is imparting course without approval of UGC and AICTE. How such allegations can be attributed with mens rea to commit offence of cheating when the prosecution did not dispute that AAI is a Deemed University is some thing which is so surreal that it does not even require meticulous discussion to throw out the charge of commission of any offence. In my view the whole exercise of the investigating officer in submitting the impugned charge sheet is not fair. Other charge of excess fees is only an ornamental charge as the whole case diary does not indicate any tangible material for the said charge even on grave suspicion.

15. In view of above, this Criminal Misc. Application stands allowed and prosecution of applicants through Case Number 406 of 2006, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Rajendra B. Lal, under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 474 I.P.C, P.S Naini, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 5, “(Now pending before CJM)”. Allahabad and the concerned charge sheet of crime number 312 of 2005, under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, and 474 I.P.C, PS Naini district Allahabad are hereby quashed.

16. Petition allowed.