Crl.Petn./18/2023 of PUJA SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 27 August 2024

1. The fact of the case is that a complaint was lodged by the Chancellorof the Techno Global University, Shillong, the respondent No. 4, on 16-07-2013 before the Officer-in-Charge, Mawlai Police Station alleging that aracket was engaged in forging marksheets etc. in the name of TechnoGlobal University, Shillong and was inducing members of public by use offalse website of the said university, with message from UGC Chairman etc.and thereby cheating the university members of public and the country bysale of marksheets and other documents allegedly on behalf of the saiduniversity. A request was made to investigate the matter and to unearth thecrime and deal with the wrongdoers firmly under appropriate sections oflaw. On the filing of the complaint, the Mawlai PS Case No. 46 (7) 13under Section 66A of Information Technology Act was registered by thepolice and the matter was investigated into. On the conclusion of theinvestigation, a charge-sheet bearing No. 04 dated 07-01-2017 wassubmitted against the petitioner and her husband Sanjeev Kumar Srivastavaunder Section 66D of the Information Technology Act and Sections419,420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In thesaid charge-sheet, four other accused persons were stated to be absconder.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this present application forquashing of the matter against her.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaintlodged by the respondent No.4 did not name any person as accused. Thelearned Counsel draws attention of this Court to the various parts of thecharge-sheet and submits that no allegation has been specifically madeagainst the petitioner. He submits that there is no instance of anywrongdoing on the part of the petitioner in the entire prosecution case. Hefurther submits that simply because a charge-sheet has been filed againstthe husband of the petitioner and recovery of some cash and documentswere made from the resident of the petitioner and her husband, it would notautomatically mean that the petitioner is involved in the matter. The learnedCounsel refers to a report dated 20-03-2015 of the I.O and order dated 08-05-2015, which were brought into record by an additional affidavit dated09-08-2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner, and submits that the petitionerhas no involvement in the matter as it is evident therein that her bankaccount was being operated by her husband and the cash seized from herhouse was no way connected with the instant case. He contends that inabsence of any allegation of existence of fiduciary relationship between thepetitioner and her husband(co-accused), she cannot be dragged in thematter. He submits that in view of the admitted position as reflected in thereport dated 20-03-2015 and order dated 08-05-2015, it is a fit case wherethe entire proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. To buttress hisargument, the learned Counsel places reliance on the decisions of the ApexCourt reported in (1992) Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, State ofHaryana and Others versus. Bhajan Lal and Others. (para-102) and AIR

2022 Supreme Court 2268, Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka and another(para-8).

3. Per contra, the learned GA submits that the petitioner was activelyinvolved in the matter and the charge-sheet mentioned the petitioner as amastermind who operated the fake university along with her husband. Thelearned GA has taken this Court to all the relevant parts of the charge-sheetand submitted that consequent to the freezing of the bank account of thefake Techno Global University by the West Bengal Police in connectionwith some other cases, the cash transactions were made to the bank accountof the petitioner. He submits that the statement of the petitioner before thepolice indicates that she was all along aware of the illegal activities in thecase and has been supporting and cooperating with her husband. He furthersubmits that the petitioner cannot claim discharge in a criminal case,specially when the offence alleged is in relation to financial scams andforgery of documents, on the ground of being a female and maritalobligation. The learned GA submits that the report dated 20-03-2015, onwhich the petitioner has placed reliance, cannot be treated as a conclusiveproof as the same was furnished much before the conclusion of theinvestigation and submission of the charge-sheet on 07-01-2017. Hesubmits that no case has been made out by the petitioner calling for anyinterference at this stage and the present application is liable to bedismissed.

4. A perusal of the materials on record reveals that the allegation madein the complaint and the narration of the facts in the charge-sheet speaks ofa grave criminal offence which has a potential to create a dent in thefunction of the educational institutions in the country. There is specific

mention of creation of fake website with details of admission, courses,contacts etc. with which the actual Techno Global University, Shillong doesnot have any connection. The charge-sheet makes a disclosure that duringthe investigation it was learnt that even before the Techno GlobalUniversity started functioning, certificates and marksheets were issuedthrough the fake website in the name of the university. It was alsoascertained that the bank account of the fake Techno Global Universitymaintained with the ICICI Bank in the name of the co-accused Shri SanjeevKumar Srivastava (co-accused) and some other persons was used for thepurpose of making cash transaction in the name of the university. Thecharge-sheet also indicates that consequent to the freezing of the said bankaccount by the West Bengal police in connection with some other case, thebank account of the petitioner was utilized for facilitating cash transactionin the name of the fake university. Though a contention has been made onbehalf of the petitioner that she had no role in the activities of the co-accused in the matter, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the petitioner’sbank account was used by the co-accused without her knowledge andconsent. The facts and events of the case, it cannot be said at this stage thatthe petitioner is not involved in any manner in this case.

5. The proposition of law laid down at para-102 (clauses 1 & 3) in Stateof Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) relied on by thelearned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable in the presentmatter in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner and use of herbank account has been specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet. Thedecision of Rekha Jain vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (supra), whichprimarily concerns involvement of offence under Section 420 IPC, is also Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thedecision is not applicable in the present case.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present criminal petitionand the same stands dismissed.

Judge

Meghalaya27.08.2024“Biswarup PS”