Dismissed

Shri Narayan Pvt. Industrial Training Ins v. U O I and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2017CW/986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed two connected writ petitions where the foundation document appeared fabricated. A police report confirmed the document was not on official portals and was forged. The Court refused to share the report with petitioners, dismissed the petitions, and opened the possibility of contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; police directed to register FIR; respondents authorized to move for contempt of Court.

Shri Narayan Pvt. Industrial Training Ins Vs U O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 937 / 2017

¶3

Rise (Pvt.) Industrial Training Institute, NH-12 Pech Ki Bawari Tehsil Hindoli District Bundi (raj.) Running by Rise Educational and Welfare Society Through Its Secretary Shri Ram Singh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, Hanuman Nagar Kota Road, Deoli, District Tonk (raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India Ministry of Skill Development and Enterpreneurship Through Director, Directorate General of Employment and Training (D.G.E. N.T.), Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

¶7

The Quality Council of India (QCI) Through Its Director, C/o of Quality Council of India, Institute of Engineers Building, IInd Floor,2 Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, India.

¶8

State of Rajasthan Directorate of Technical Education Rajasthan, Jodhpur, W-6, Residency Road, Jodhpur Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 986 / 2017

¶12

Shri Narayan (pvt) Industrial Training Institute, Near Panchayat Samiti, Bundi Road, Nainwa, District Bundi Running by Shri Narayan Seva Samiti Bundi Road, Nainwa, District Bundi (raj.) Through Its Secretary Shri Digvijay Narayan S/o Shri Badri Lal Verma, R/o Near Panchayat Samiti, Bundi Road, Nainwa, District Bundi (raj.). ----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Union of India Ministry of Skill Development and Enterpreneurship Through Director, Directorate General of Employment and Training (D.G.E. N.T.), Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

¶15

The Quality Council of India (QCI) Through Its Director, C/o of Quality Council of India, Institution of Engineers Building, IInd Floor,2 Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, India.

¶16

State of Rajasthan Directorate of Technical Education Rajasthan, Jodhpur, W-6, Residency Road, Jodhpur Raj.

¶17

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta, Mr. Nishant Mandawara. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Ashish Kumar,

(2 of 3)

[CW-937/2017]

Mr. C.S. Sinha.

Mr. Manu Bhargava, GC.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶23

Order

¶24

07/07/2017

¶25

Vide order dated 09.05.2017, the Cyber Cell (Crime), Police Station (Jaipur) was required to investigate as to whether (Annexure-7) in both the writ petitions was a genuine document or an outcome of cyber fraud. Annexure-7 was directed to be sent by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur who was required to make a report to this Court.

¶26

Today Mr. Suresh Kumar DSP Cyber Sell (Crime), Police Station (Jaipur) has submitted in court a report dated 30.06.2017 under the hand of the Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau, Jaipur, wherein it has been stated that on an inquiry made it has been found that Annexure-7 as annexed in each of the two writ petitions was never uploaded on the official website of the Quality Council of India, NABET and DGT New Delhi portals and appears to be fabricated and a false document. Copy of the letter is taken on record of the petition.

¶27

Mr. J.P. Gupta and Mr. Nishant Mandawara appearing for the petitioners submitted that a copy of the report dated 30.06.2017 under the hand of the Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau, Jaipur be supplied to them in compliance with the principles of natural justice such that the petitioners be in a

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

CW-937/2017]

¶30

position to point out the lacunas in the said report and file a counter/objections thereto if warranted.

¶31

Heard. Considered.

¶32

I am not inclined to accept the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the report dated 30.06.2017 be supplied to the petitioners who then be allowed to furnish a response thereto. It is well-settled that a criminal investigation even at a preliminary stage, as an inquiry by the cyber cell was under order of this Court, is not to be done in consultation with the potential accused. The letter dated 30.06.2017 referred to above definitely makes out a prima facie offence under the cyber laws. The police will now be free to register a FIR and investigate it in accordance with law. The petitioners on their part will be free to take their remedies as advised and available in law.

¶33

For the present one way or the other in view of the genuineness of Annexure-7, at the very foundation of the writ petition being in serious doubt and its existence itself obviously being a disputed question of fact, I am not inclined to entertain these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed.

¶34

At the end of the criminal proceedings if any, the respondents shall be free to take steps for contempt of this Court for reasons of Annexure-7—purportedly a forged and fabricated document being filed before this Court on oath.

¶35

The petitions stand dismissed.

¶36

(ALOK SHARMA) J.

¶37

Karan/73-74

Shri Narayan Pvt. Industrial Training Ins v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Narayan Pvt. Industrial Training Ins v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kankoria Vs State Revenue Department Ors.

Gopal Prasad Vs State

Bhuvnesh Kumar Singhal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Montosh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Krishan Kant Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Bhartendra Kumar Vs Stae of Raj