Dr. Ajay Goenka vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court held that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner was not involved in the admission process of Chirayu Medical College in 2011. It noted that Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Tatha Dental Snatak Pravesh Pareeksha Niyam, 2011, stipulated the formation of an Admission Committee, and a resolution of the Chirayu Charitable Foundation and a subsequent order dated 4/8/2011 clearly indicated that the petitioner was not responsible for admissions. Instead, Shri Girish Kanetkar and the Dean of the College were responsible. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Index Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre (Supra), which held that last-day admissions or College-level counseling undertaken by a Private Medical College are not illegal. The Court concluded that the case fell within categories (1) and (3) of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, warranting the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. due to the lack of ingredients of the charges against the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court considered the delay of over 12 years since the admissions and the fact that the students had completed their studies, deeming it a travesty of justice to proceed with the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Ajay Goenka, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge-sheet filed by the CBI and the order taking cognizance against him. The charge-sheet stemmed from an FIR registered in 2014 concerning alleged irregularities in the Pre Medical Test Examination 2011 and its counselling sessions. The FIR alleged a scam involving blocking seats in private medical colleges for financial gain. The investigation was transferred to the CBI, which subsequently filed a supplementary charge-sheet. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and others. The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the admission process of Chirayu Medical College, as he was merely the Secretary of the Chirayu Charitable Foundation, a non-profit society running various institutions, including the medical college. He contended that the admission process was handled by an Admission Committee and specific individuals as per college rules and a society resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner, particularly concerning his alleged role in the admission process of Chirayu Medical College in 2011, as per Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)? 2. Whether the petitioner can be held responsible for the admission-making process or vicariously liable for alleged irregularities, given the absence of specific provisions for vicarious liability in the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, or the M.P. Registered Examination Act, and considering the judgment in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat ((2008)5 SCC 668)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had no role in granting admissions at Chirayu Medical College. He referred to Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Tatha Dental Snatak Pravesh Pareeksha Niyam, 2011, which mandates an Admission Committee for admissions. He stated that he was only the Secretary of the Chirayu Charitable Foundation and that the day-to-day admission activities were the responsibility of the Dean and his team. A society resolution and a subsequent order constituting the Admission Committee further supported his claim that he was not responsible. He also argued against vicarious liability in criminal offences, citing Supreme Court decisions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (CBI) against the petitioner's submissions.