Allowed

Dara H Sapatiwalla v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2022CRL.P/6647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against school owners for alleged violations of education laws. The court held cognizance was illegal as it was taken on a police report instead of a competent authority complaint under the Karnataka Education Act, and without required sanction under the RTE Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed and proceedings in CC No.9471 of 2015 quashed.

Dara H Sapatiwalla Vs State of Karnataka by — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6647 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DARA H SAPATIWALLA

¶8

S/O HOMI SAPATIWALA

¶9

MAJOR

¶10

11, SHERI HOUSE I FLOOR, KAWASJI PATEL STREET

¶11

FORT, MUMBAI-400 001.

¶12

NEVILE MINOCHER BILIMORIA

¶13

MAJOR

¶14

H NO. 8, II FLOOR

¶15

RUPA LANE CHANDANWADI NEAR MUNCIPAL SCHOOL GIRGAON

¶16

MUMBAI-400 004.

¶17

VISHWANATH KUMAR S/O C S VISHWANATH R/AT NO.304,

¶18

CANARA BANK COLONY CHANDRALAYOUT

¶19

BENGALURU-560 072.

¶20

... PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR VIKRAM TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION INVESTIGATED BY

¶25

POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB, OCW BENGALURU-560 002.

¶26

(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶27

MR. MUNIREDDY ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 029.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI V S HEGDE, SPP-II A/W RENUKARADHYA R D FOR HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C C NO.9471 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ACMM, BENGALURU WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.800 OF 2014 OF HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 18(5) OF R.T.E ACT AND SECTION 123 OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT WHICH IS CONFIRMED IN CRL.RP.NO.553 OF 2015 BY ORDER DATED 23^RD AUGUST, 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SINGLE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The second respondent who is the Block Education Officer, Bengaluru South, on 10.11.2014 lodged First Information Report before the Hulimavu Police Station

¶34

¶35

alleging that accused 1 to 5 are running a school by name Vibgyor High at Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru from I to V Standard.

¶36

It is further alleged that the school obtained permission from the Government on 25.03.2014 to run school for I to V Standard with kannada as a medium of instruction. It is further alleged that the school is teaching students in ICSC syllabus in English medium from I to V Standard without following the ICSE Rules and without obtaining the permission of the Government.

¶37

It is further alleged that the school has charged exorbitant fees from the students by telling their parents that they are coaching ICSE syllabus. It is further alleged that the school is also running 3 primary schools without obtaining registration certificate or recognition.

¶38

Hence, the respondent No.2 stated that the accused persons who are running the school from I to V Standard have committed the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 18(5) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Section 123 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

¶39

¶40

The Police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences as alleged above. Taking exception to the same, this Writ petition is filed.

¶41

Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel

¶42

appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the Police report, and in the absence of any complaint lodged by the Competent Authority or Authorised Officer as specified under Section 137 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and also without prior sanction of the concerned Authority under Section 36 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

¶43

In support of his contentions, the learned senior

¶44

counsel place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of JEEWAN KUMAR RAUT & ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2009) 7 SCC 526.

¶45

Sri. V.S.Hegde, Learned State Public Prosecutor-II

¶46

appearing for State submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has committed offence as alleged against

¶47

¶48

them, the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶49

I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for parties.

¶50

On the First Information Report lodged by respondent No.2, the jurisdictional police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 418, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 18(5) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Section 123 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Section 137 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 reads thus:

¶51

“No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except under Sections 115 to 122 (both inclusive) or the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by the competent authority or with the previous sanction of such authority.”

¶52

The reading of the said Section clearly indicates that the court can take cognizance for the offences punishable

¶53

¶54

under the said Act except under Section 115 to 122 only on a complaint filed by the competent authority or the previous sanction of such authority and not on the report submitted by the jurisdictional police. In the present case, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences alleged on the report submitted by the jurisdictional police and not on the complaint filed by the competent authority or the previous sanction of such authority. Hence, taking the cognizance against the petitioners is contrary to Section 137 of the said act. Under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences alleged is without authority of law.

¶55

The learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 18(5) of the Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 36 of the said act specifies that no prosecution for offences punishable under Sub-Section (2) of Section 13, Sub Section (5) of Section 18 shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of an officer authorized in this behalf, by the appropriate Government, by notification.

¶56

¶57

In the present case the police have submitted the chargesheet on the information given by respondent No.2 without obtaining previous sanction of an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the same is without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

i) Criminal petition is allowed;

¶60

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.9471 of 2015 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of the Crime No.800 of 2014 registered by Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 18(5) of Right to Education Act, Section 123 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is hereby quashed.

¶61

iii) The said authority are at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners if permissible under law.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

ARK

Dara H Sapatiwalla v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara H Sapatiwalla v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt T Nagarathna @ Nagamma Vs Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

M/S Meliora Assets Reconstruction Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Veerendra Kumar Vs the State by the Prl. Civil Judge & Jmfc

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka