MANU/TN/2254/2022

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2022-1-LW(C rl)510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Crl. O.P. Nos. 22832, 22811, 22795, 23676 of 2021, Crl. M.P. Nos. 12459, 12468,
12452 and 13037 of 2021
Decided On: 01.04.2022
D. Ponniyen Selvan and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V. Bharathidasan, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A. Ramesh, Sr. Advocate for L. Swaminathan
For Respondents/Defendant: K. Srinivasan, Spl. P.P.
Case Note:
Criminal - Quashing of proceeding - Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Appeal sought to quash proceedings for offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC - Whether by denying admission to those candidates, petitioners
committed offence of cheating? - Held, original case of prosecution is that,
there was conspiracy between petitioners and public servants and
Government officials - In furtherance of said conspiracy, offence committed -
Theory not established and public servants were dropped from case,
petitioners alone charged for offence under Section 420 IPC -Offence
committed by Trust, which is corporate body -In absence of any allegation
that petitioners are in-charge and responsible for affairs of Trust, they cannot
be made as accused - No material available to show that petitioners involved
in admission process and they have personally demanded huge fees and
denied admission to candidates -Materials available on record do not contain
ingredients necessary for offence under Section 420 IPC -No case made out
against petitioners - Allowing trial to continue will only lead to abuse of
process of Court -Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed - Appeal
allowed. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]
ORDER
V. Bharathidasan, J.
1. The issues involved in all these criminal original petitions are one and the same and
hence they are heard together and disposed of by means of this common order.
2. The petitioners who are arrayed as A9, A7, A8 and A11, have filed the above criminal
original petitions seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 533, 530 and 532 of
2020 and 535 of 2021, respectively pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry, for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of these quash petitions, are as follows:
(i) The petitioners are representing various medical colleges in the Union
07-03-2025 (Page 1 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 Territory of Puducherry. Based on source information that, the officials of
Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC) of Government of Puducherry and
Management of seven medical colleges, both self financing as well as deemed
to be universities have deliberately denied admission to the students who were
selected in the counseling conducted by the CENTAC to the respective medical
colleges and admitted students who were not selected by CENTAC, in various
post graduate (PG) medical courses, a FIR has been registered against 13
named accused and other unknown officials of Government of Puducherry and
CENTAC, in RC MA1 2017 A 0020, dated 18.09.2017, for offence under Section
120-B r/w Section 420 I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. Out of the 13 accused, A1 to A6 are officials of CENTAC, and
A7 to A13 are representing various medical colleges in the Union Territory of
Puducherry.
(ii) The above FIR has been registered on the ground that, A1 to A6 entered
into a criminal conspiracy with A7 to A13, in the month of March-July 2017,
relating to the admission of students in the PG Medical Courses in the Union
Territory of Puducherry and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the
accused public servants abused their official position and cheated the bona fide
students who were issued with provisional admission certificate during
counseling by CENTAC and denied them the seat which they were otherwise
allocated after due admission process and facilitated the private medical
colleges to admit students who were not sponsored by CENTAC, thereby
allowed the private medical colleges to collect exorbitant fees and deprived
admission to genuine candidates.
(iii) It is further stated in the FIR that, the admission to the post graduate
courses in the medical institutions were made through the common counseling
based on the marks obtained by them in National Eligibility Entrance Test
(NEET). In the Union Territory of Puducherry, there are 318 post
graduate/diploma seats in medicines and out of which 162 seats were
earmarked as Government quota and the balance 156 seats were earmarked for
management quota. The first phase of counseling was conducted by CENTAC on
11.05.2017, the second phase was held on 19.05.2017, a mop up counseling
was held on 29.05.2017 and final counseling was held on 31.05.2017. Pursuant
to the criminal conspiracy, the first phase of counseling was held without even
notifying the fees payable by the students and the same was intimated only
after completion of first phase of counseling. In furtherance of the conspiracy,
after issuing provisional admission certificate, no efforts were made by A1 to
A3 to verify the number of students admitted as against the students who were
issued with the provisional admission certificate and they have also not taken
into consideration of those students while calculating the vacancy position and
they have wrongly stated in the website that all the students who were issued
with the provisional admission certificate by CENTAC, were admitted by the
respective medical colleges.
(iv) Further, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, after the Fees Committee
revised the fees, the management of three self financing colleges refused
admission to bona fide students who where issued with provisional admission
certificate by CENTAC, instead admitted students who were not sponsored by
CENTAC and collected huge fees that have been mentioned in the website of the
respective medical colleges ranging from Rs. 40 to 50 lakhs.

07-03-2025 (Page 2 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

 (v) In so far as deemed to be universities are concerned, a Division Bench of
this Court by an order dated 16.06.2017, in W.P. No. 14232 of 2017, directed
the deemed to be universities to admit students who were issued with the
provisional admission certificates by CENTAC, by collecting an initial fees of Rs.
10 lakhs and the deemed to be universities were allowed to collect the balance
fee depending upon the fee structure to be determined by the University Grants
Commission (UGC). Despite the same, the deemed to be universities refused
admission to the bona fide students, instead admitted students who were not
selected by CENTAC.
(vi) Alleging that, the available materials would show that, A1 to A6 and other
unknown Government servants of Puducherry, abused their official position and
in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy entered with A7 to A13, facilitated the
private medical colleges to admit students for the PG courses even though they
were not sponsored by CENTAC, which resulted in frustrating genuine students
an opportunity of continuing higher education and ineligible students being
admitted into those colleges. A1 to A13 in furtherance of the conspiracy,
cheated bona fide students in the matter of admission in PG medical courses
and gave admission to ineligible candidates by collecting exorbitant admission
fees. A1 to A6 who are all public servants failed to follow the admission
procedures and facilitated the management of the private medical colleges by
abusing their official position. Hence, A1 to A13 have committed cognizable
offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section13(2)
r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence the FIR has
been registered. After investigation, separate final reports have been filed only
against the petitioners/accused for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC
and the other accused namely A1 to A6, the officials of CENTAC were dropped,
on the ground no material available against them for the above mentioned
offence.
4. Earlier the matter was pending in the Court of Chief Judge, Puducherry, which is the
Special Court, dealing with cases arise under Prevention of Corruption Act. After filing
the final reports, the cases were transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Puducherry, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has taken cognizance of the
offence and issued process. To quash the above proceedings, the petitioners are before
this Court with these petitions. Out of the four petitioners, three petitioners represent
the medical colleges of deemed to be universities in Puducherry and the petitioner in
Crl. O.P. No. 23676 of 2021, is representing a self financing medical college, affiliated
to Pondicherry University. The quash petitions have been filed on the following
grounds:
(i) For the medical colleges run by deemed to be universities, no Fees Fixation
Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee') has been constituted by
the Government of Puducherry and no fees has been fixed for the above
medical colleges. The Government of Puducherry and CENTAC have issued
various orders/notifications, stating that the fee fixed by the Committee is not
applicable to the deemed to be universities and the students were directed to
pay the fees as fixed by the deemed to be universities in their prospectus and
made it clear that the Fees Fixation Committee fixes the fees only for three self
financing medical colleges affiliated to Pondicherry University. Further, the
students who have been provisionally selected by CENTAC, have not paid the
fees as prescribed by the deemed to be universities. The statements of
Government officials recorded during investigation clearly shows that the fees
07-03-2025 (Page 3 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 fixed by the Committee is not applicable to the deemed to be universities.
(ii) According to the petitioners, the fee structure of medical colleges of
deemed to be universities is transparent and the same is displayed in the notice
board of CENTAC during counseling and none of the students have given any
complaint as against the medical colleges regarding the fees structure fixed by
them. The CBI has erroneously proceeded equating the medical colleges coming
under the ambit of deemed to be universities with other private unaided
colleges, knowing fully well that the deemed to be universities are of an all
India character and the concept of state quota does not applicable to them. The
Government misguided the students, for which, the medical colleges are not
responsible and the various affidavits filed by the Government before this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the fees fixed by the Fees
Committee clearly excluded the deemed to be university medical colleges.
(iii) It is further contended that the allegations made against the petitioners are
at any rate does not prima facie make out an offence punishable under Section
420 I.P.C. and absolutely there is no material to show that the petitioners have
practiced any deception, inducement with fraudulent and dishonest intention to
cheat the students and they have not made any promise to the students.
(iv) That apart, the petitioners are only trustees of the Trust which runs the
medical colleges, and if at all any offence is committed, it is only by the Trust,
without making the Trust as an accused, in the absence of any specific
allegation against any of the petitioners, that they have personally committed
the offence of cheating, no criminal prosecution can be initiated against them.
5. The respondent CBI has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating as follows:
(i) The petitioner's college have deliberately violated the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, Government of India, Medical Council of India and
University Grants Commission in respect of admission to the PG courses in
medical colleges. The candidates whose names were forwarded by CENTAC
were denied admission in the Medical Colleges and around 95 students who
were not selected by CENTAC were given admission in the respective colleges
by collecting huge fees from them.
(ii) It is further stated that, as per the regulations, the admissions were to be
made strictly on the basis of merit which has to be determined by a competitive
examination. Out of the total seats available in the college 50% of the seats
should be filled by the State Government and 50% has to be filled by the
concerned medical colleges on the basis of merit list prepared as per the marks
obtained by the candidates in the NEET examination. A combined counseling for
filling up 50% seats have to be conducted by the designated authority
established by the Government, so far as Government of Puducherry is
concerned, the said task was entrusted with the CENTAC.
(iii) It is further stated that there are three deemed to be universities and three
self financing medical colleges in the Union Territory of Puducherry and they
are collecting huge admission fees as against the fees fixed by the Fees
Committee and the medical colleges did not admit students provisionally
selected by CENTAC, on the other hand, admitted students who have been
discharged by the Medical Council of India. The candidates were given
admission prior to the dates of counseling by collecting huge amount of fees.
07-03-2025 (Page 4 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 (iv) Further, in violation of the instructions, the accused colleges did not follow
the procedure of giving admission as per the merit list prepared on the basis of
NEET marks. Though the accused colleges are part of the counseling process,
the students selected by CENTAC were refused admission, as they could not pay
the exorbitant fees and many students did not opt for the deemed to be
universities as their fee structure was very high. In order to collect huge fees,
they have admitted students who have paid the fee demanded by them and
thereby cheated the students who were qualified as per norms such as
obtaining high marks in NEET exam and selected through common counseling
conducted by CENTAC. Hence, the respondent CBI filed final report against the
petitioners/accused for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
6 . Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend
that, out of the four colleges herein, three medical colleges are deemed to be
universities and one college is a self financing college affiliated to Pondicherry
University. The fees fixed by the Fees Committee constituted by the Puducherry
Government is only applicable to the self financing colleges affiliated to Pondicherry
University and it does not applicable to the deemed to be university medical colleges.
7 . The learned senior counsel referred to the Government Order dated 17.04.2017,
wherein, it is clearly stated that the Fees Committee has been constituted only to fix the
fees for self financing private medical colleges and the fees structure in respect of
medical colleges under deemed to be university will not come under the purview of the
Fees Committee and the candidates were requested to verify the fees structure from the
website of the concerned deemed to be university.
8 . The learned senior counsel referred to a Note issued by the CENTAC dated
11.05.2017, and submitted that, the candidates were also instructed to deposit the
tuition fees as fixed by the concerned deemed to be university at the CENTAC office,
failing which, the seat allotment will be cancelled. He further referred to another order
of CENTAC dated 30.05.2017, directing the management of the medical institutions
other than deemed to be universities to strictly collect the fees recommended by the
Fees Committee vide its order dated 24.05.2017. The learned senior counsel, also
referred to another notice issued by the Government dated 31.05.2017, stating that the
private self financing medical colleges should strictly follow the fees fixed by the Fees
Committee and the fees fixed by the Fees Committee is not applicable to the deemed to
be universities.
9 . Referring to the above communications, the learned senior counsel would submit
that, the fees fixed by the Fees Committee is not applicable to the medical colleges
coming under the deemed to be universities and they are permitted to fix their own fees
and the students were directed to pay the fees as fixed by the respective deemed to be
university.
10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the time of admission for PG medical courses, the students
should deposit the fees in demand draft favouring the concerned deemed to be
university and the CENTAC shall forthwith forward the demand draft to the concerned
deemed to be university. Admittedly, the deemed to be universities have issued
prospectus, wherein, they have fixed the fees, and the same was also uploaded in their
respective website and the fees structure of the deemed to be universities have been put
up in the CENTAC notice board.

07-03-2025 (Page 5 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

1 1 . The learned senior counsel further submitted that, it is not the case of the
prosecution that the candidates who were selected by CENTAC have paid the entire
tuition fees as prescribed by the deemed to be universities and those amount has been
transferred to the respective deemed to be universities by the CENTAC at the time of
admission. In such circumstance, the deemed to be universities have no obligation to
admit those students in their medical colleges. Further, according to the learned senior
counsel, the last date for admission to the PG medical courses is 31.05.2017 and on
that date, number of students selected through CENTAC have not paid the requisite fees
and they have not joined the college. In such circumstance only, the petitioner's
colleges admitted students who were selected in the NEET examination, for which they
are permitted.
12. According to the learned senior counsel, so far as the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court dated 16.06.2017 in W.P. No. 14232 of 2017 is concerned, the
Division Bench directed the students to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, against that order, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 07.09.2018 in W.P. (Civil) No. 949 of 2018,
has ordered status quo and there is no question of petitioners cheating those candidates
selected through CENTAC and that they have admitted unqualified candidates by
collecting huge fees.
13. The learned senior counsel further submitted that, so far as the petitioner in Crl.
O.P. No. 23676 of 2021 is concerned, it is a self financing medical college affiliated to
Pondicherry University. In respect of self financing colleges are concerned, Committee
fixed the fees at Rs. 14 lakhs and only one student by name Dr. A. Ashwin, has paid the
fees and none of the students selected by CENTAC, have paid the fees fixed by the Fees
Committee, and that demand draft has also not reached the college before 31.05.2017,
the cut-off date for admitting the students. That apart, absolutely there is no material to
show that this petitioner demanded exorbitant fees. In such circumstance, no offence
under Section 420 IPC is made out against this petitioner also.
14. The learned senior counsel further contended that, all the colleges were run by
Private Trusts, in which the petitioners in Crl. O.P. Nos. 22811 and 22795 of 2021 are
only trustees, and petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 22832 of 2021, is only a Civil Engineer
working in the college, he is not the Registrar as stated by the prosecution, and he is no
way connected with the admission process, and there is no allegation against him that
he personally demanded fees and involved in the admission process. None of the
prosecution witnesses in their statement have stated that the petitioners have made a
promise to the candidates and the petitioners were directly involved in the admission
process and cheated the candidates. That apart, the Trust being a corporate body, has
not been made as an accused in this case, in such circumstances, the petitioner, being
trustees of the Trust, cannot be made vicariously liable for the offence said to have
been committed by a corporate body, i.e., the Trust.
15. The learned senior counsel further submitted that even though the prosecution has
come out with a case that, there is a conspiracy between the public servants namely
CENTAC officials and the management of the medical colleges and in furtherance of the
said conspiracy, they have committed the offence. Now that the prosecution has omitted
all those public servants viz., A1 to A6 and with a mala fide intention has foisted case
against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, which is not
maintainable at all in the eye of law. The materials available on record do not constitute
an offence under Section 420 IPC, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In
support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon various judgments,
which will be referred to in the later part of this order.
07-03-2025 (Page 6 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
16. Per contra, Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
CBI, would vehemently contend that, the petitioner's medical colleges did not admit
candidates who were selected by CENTAC. They have demanded huge fees, more than
that fixed by the Fees Committee from the candidates selected by CENTAC, thereby
denied them admission, thereafter they have selected ineligible candidates, who were
not selected by CENTAC, and admitted them.
17. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that a promise has been
made by the entire system for giving admissions to the students. The medical colleges
are part of the system, and breached the promise, thereby, they have committed an
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
18. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, took this Court through various statement of
the witnesses in each case to show that the students selected by CENTAC, were denied
admission and fees fixed by the medical colleges were exorbitant and against the fees
fixed by the Fees Committee.
19. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, further submitted that this Court by an order
dated 16.06.2017, has fixed the fees at Rs. 10 lakhs tentatively, even thereafter, the
petitioners did not admit the students and demanded more fees from them, thereby
violated the orders passed by this Court and they have admitted ineligible students who
have not come through CENTAC by collecting exorbitant fees. Thus, according to the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, the petitioner colleges have cheated the students by
denying admission to the eligible candidates who were selected through CENTAC and on
the other hand, admitted ineligible candidates on their own by collecting exorbitant fees
from them. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the materials available
on record clearly shows that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable
under Section 420 IPC and the Court below has also by correctly applying its mind took
cognizance and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
20. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on
record carefully.
21. The allegation against all the petitioners is that, they have denied admission to the
students who were selected by CENTAC by demanding huge fees, thereafter, admitted
ineligible students, on their own, thereby they have cheated eligible candidates who
were selected by CENTAC and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
2 2 . Before dealing with the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of IPC.
23. Cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC, which reads as follows:
"Section 415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or
is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the
meaning of this section"

07-03-2025 (Page 7 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

2 4 . To constitute an offence of cheating, there should be a fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of a person by deceiving him and the person who was induced should be
intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or the person who was induced should be intentionally
induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
so deceived. Thus, fraudulent or dishonest inducement and a guilty intention is an
essential ingredient for the offence under Section 415 IPC.
25. Section 420 IPC, deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
which reads as follows:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats
and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
26. To convict a person for an offence under Section 420 IPC, it should be shown that
the accused must commit an offence of cheating and the person who is stated to have
been cheated must be deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter
or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or
sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Thus, cheating
is an essential ingredient for committing an offence under Section 420 IPC. That apart,
to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at
the time inducement was made. It is also necessary to show that the person had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Further, to hold a
person guilty of committing an offence of cheating, it has to be shown that the
inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent and that the inducement should be
intentional.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samir Sahay alias Sameer Sahay Vs. State of U.P.
reported in MANU/SC/1359/2017 : (2018) 14 SCC 233, has held in paragraph 21 as
follows:
"21. In the first information report even allegation of making assurance was not
made against the appellant but was made against Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.),
father of the appellant. There was no allegation that the appellant fraudulently
or dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit money. This Court in Arun
Bhandari v. State of U.P.[Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0020/2013 :
(2013) 2 SCC 801: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri.) 21], has held that it is necessary to
show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making
the promise. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be
presumed as an act leading to cheating. An earlier two-Judge Bench judgment
of this Court in State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai [State of Kerala v. A. Pareed
Pillai, MANU/SC/0263/1972 : (1972) 3 SCC 661: 1972 SCC (Cri.) 705], was
quoted with approval in para 21. Paras 21, 22, 23 and 24 which are relevant are
to the following effect: (Arun Bhandari case [Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P.,
MANU/SC/0020/2013 : (2013) 2 SCC 801: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri.) 21], SCCpp.
811-12)
"21. Before we proceed to scan and analyse the material brought on

07-03-2025 (Page 8 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

 record in the case at hand, it is seemly to refer to certain authorities
wherein the ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In State of
Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai [State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai,
MANU/SC/0263/1972 : (1972) 3 SCC 661: 1972 SCC (Cri.) 705] a two-
Judge Bench ruled that: (SCC p. 667, para 16)
'16. ... To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it
has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of
making the promise [and] such a dishonest intention cannot be
inferred from [a] mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil
the promise.'
2 2 . In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad,
MANU/SC/3156/2000 : (2000) 3 SCC 693: 2000 SCC (Cri.) 733], this Court has
held thus: (SCC pp. 696-97, para 7)
'7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first
part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the
complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person
should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing.
That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or
fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional.
As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of
Bombay [Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay,
MANU/SC/0030/1956 : AIR 1956 SC 575: 1956 Cri. L J 1116], a guilty
intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order,
therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating,
"mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. It was also
observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B. [Mahadeo Prasad v. State
of W.B., MANU/SC/0181/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 724: 1954 Cri. L J 1806],
that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to
deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was
offered.'
2 3 . In S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar,
MANU/SC/0672/2001 : (2002) 1 SCC 241: 2002 SCC (Cri.) 129] it has been
laid down that: (SCC p. 250, para 21)
'21. ... In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to
deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was
made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed
an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently
cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating.'
24. In the said case while dealing with the ingredients of criminal breach of
trust and cheating, the Bench observed thus: (S.W. Palanitkar case [S.W.
Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0672/2001 : (2002) 1 SCC 241: 2002
SCC (Cri.) 129], SCC p. 246, paras 9-10)
'9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are:
(i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over
property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or
converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or
07-03-2025 (Page 9 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to
do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching
the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be
fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)
(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to
any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by, (ii)(b) the act of omission
should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the
person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.""
28. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy Vs. Sudha Seetharam reported in MANU/SC/0213/2019 :
(2019) 16 SCC 739, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 15 to 20 as
follows:
"15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,
and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
"cheat"."
16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced
to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or
16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced
to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he were not so deceived; and
16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be
one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
1 7 . A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the
offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any
property is liable for the offence of cheating.
18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
07-03-2025 (Page 10 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section
415; and
19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed
or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable
security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under
Section 420."
2 9 . In Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0134/2021 :
(2021) 3 SCC 751, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as
follows:
"7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and having
gone through the averments in the complaint and the charge-sheet, even if the
averments made in the complaint are taken on their face, they do not constitute
the ingredients necessary for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. As
observed and held by this Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy [R.K. Vijayasarathy v.
Sudha Seetharam, MANU/SC/0213/2019 : (2019) 16 SCC 739: (2020) 2 SCC
(Cri.) 454], the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as
follows:
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415;
and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed
or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable
security.
Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence
under Section 420 IPC.
8. "Cheating" is defined under Section 415 IPC. The ingredients to constitute an
offence of cheating are as follows:
(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by
07-03-2025 (Page 11 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
 deceiving him:
The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to
deliver any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or the person who was
induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived.
Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of
the offence under Section 415 IPC. A person who dishonestly induced
any person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating."
30. Keeping the above principles in mind, it is to be considered whether the material
available on record, taken on their face value, prima facie contains the necessary
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
31. So far as the petitioners in Crl. O.P. Nos. 22832, 22811 and 22795 of 2021 are
concerned, they are representing medical colleges coming under deemed to be
universities and petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 23676 of 2021 represents self financing
medical college affiliated to Pondicherry University.
32. So far as the colleges coming under the deemed to be universities are concerned, it
is the case of the petitioners that the fees fixed by the Fees Fixation Committee is not
applicable to them and the learned senior counsel also referred to various
orders/notifications issued by the Puducherry Government and CENTAC to that effect. In
an order dated 17.04.2017, the Health Department of Puducherry Government,
regarding filling up of PG medical seats for the academic year 2017, stated as follows:
"5. The fee structure for Post Graduate courses in self financing private
medical/dental colleges is under the consideration of the Fee Committee. For
fee structure in respect of colleges under Deemed University, which do not
come under the preview of Fee Committee, the candidates may be requested to
verify the fee structure from the website of the concerned Deemed University
Medical/Dental college."
33. It was followed by another Note issued by the CENTAC on 11.05.2017, the relevant
portion is extracted hereunder:
"Candidates who have been allotted seats in Deemed Universities are instructed
to Deposit the "Demand Draft" towards Tuition Fee (As prescribed by the
concerned Deemed University) on 16/05/2017, at the CENTAC OFFICE Failing
which the seat Allotted Stays Cancelled."
34. Yet another Notification issued by the Puducherry Government regarding admission
of students in PG courses, dated 30.05.2017, reads as follows:
"4. As far as fee is concerned, the management of the institutions other than
Deemed to be Universities are directed to strictly collect only the official fees as
recommended by the Fee Committee in its order dt. 24.05.2017, which is
subject to revision."
3 5 . The Puducherry Government issued another notification regarding admission of
students in PG courses, dated 31.05.2017, that is on the last date for admissions, reads

07-03-2025 (Page 12 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

as follows:
"4. As far as fee is concerned, the management of the institutions other than
Deemed to be Universities are directed to strictly collect only the official fees as
recommended by the Fee Committee in its order dt. 24.05.2017, which is
subject to revision."
36. A cursory reading of all these notifications issued by the Puducherry Government
and CENTAC, it is clear that the fees fixed by the Fees Fixation Committee is only
applicable to the institutions other than the deemed to be universities and the
candidates who were selected to the medical colleges under deemed to be universities,
have to pay the fees fixed by the respective deemed to be universities.
37. So far as the payment of fees is concerned, as per the interim orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in W.P. (Civil) No. 244 of 2017 in Education Promotion Society
of India Vs. Union of India, dated 04.05.2017, the students who were selected for PG
medical courses, at the time of counseling itself should deposit the tuition fee by way of
Demand Draft payable to the concerned deemed to be universities and the deemed to be
universities are entitled to receive applications till 08.05.2017, and the counseling
should commence from 11.05.2017.
38. It is the case of the prosecution that, the candidates who were selected by CENTAC
were not admitted by the accused medical colleges, but they have admitted ineligible
candidates collecting huge fees. From the perusal of the records, it could be seen that,
the deemed to be universities, were permitted to fix their own fees, and the respective
deemed to be universities, have separately fixed the fees and the same was also
uploaded in their respective college websites. Perusal of statements of witnesses
recorded by the prosecution, it could not be seen that the candidates who were selected
by CENTAC have paid the fees as fixed by the deemed to be universities and those fees
were sent to them. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be held that the
deemed to be universities colleges have deliberately denied admission to the students
selected by CENTAC and they have admitted some other ineligible candidates and
deliberately denied admission to the candidates selected by CENTAC. From the
statement of the candidates, who were selected by CENTAC and not admitted by the
colleges, it is seen that they have not paid the fees as fixed by the deemed to be
universities. When the candidates failed to pay the fees fixed by the deemed to be
universities, they have every right to deny admission to those candidates. Unless and
until the fees fixed by the deemed to be universities is paid by the candidates, they
have no obligation to admit the candidates merely because they have been selected by
CENTAC. Whether the fees fixed by the deemed to be universities is reasonable or
exorbitant is not a question, that arises for consideration before this Court. There is no
prima facie material available to show that the petitioners have intentionally induced the
students with dishonest or fraudulent intention.
3 9 . Now the question is, whether by denying admission to those candidates, the
petitioners have committed an offence of cheating. Admittedly, all the deemed to be
universities have fixed their own fees and none of the candidates selected by CENTAC
have paid the fees as fixed by them, no material available to show that there was a
fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners, denying admission in
their college, which is an essential ingredient for the offence under Section 420 IPC and
in the absence of the same, the petitioners cannot be held to have committed an offence
punishable under Section 420 IPC.

07-03-2025 (Page 13 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur

40. So far as the orders passed by this Court fixing fees of Rs. 10 lakhs is concerned,
the above order has been passed by this Court only on 16.06.2017, i.e., after the expiry
of the last date for admission, namely 31.05.2017 and by the time the order was
passed, most of the admission was over. That apart, according to the petitioners, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 07.09.2018, in W.P. (Civil) No. 949 of 2018,
has ordered status quo as it existed on 07.09.2018. In such circumstances, it cannot be
held that the petitioners have violated the orders passed by this Court and failed to
admit the students by collecting fees as fixed by this Court.
41. So far as the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 23676 of 2021, is concerned, it is a self
financing college, governed by the fees fixed by the Fees Fixation Committee. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the statement of one Dr. A.
Ashwin, that even though he had paid the prescribed fees of Rs. 14,00,000/- by way of
demand draft to the CENTAC office on 30.05.2017, and the petitioner namely Mr.
Dhanasekar has demanded Rs. 45,00,000/- and denied admission. However, it could be
seen from the records that, even though he stated to have paid the prescribed fees by
way of Demand Draft before the CENTAC office, the Demand Draft did not reach the
college before the cut off date of 31.05.2017, and he was informed by one Mr. K.V.
Raman, at the office of CENTAC, that the Demand Draft was not sent to the college
before the cut off date and it was sent on the next date, in such circumstance only he
was denied admission. Except this statement, there is no other material available
against the petitioner Mr. Dhanasekar. In the said circumstances, as per the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the fees was not sent to the college before the cut
off date, and for that the college cannot be blamed. Now it is stated that, the said Dr. A.
Ashwin was given adequate compensation, and he was also admitted in the PG course
in the next academic year. So far as other candidates who were denied admission,
admittedly not paid the fees fixed by the Fees Fixation Committee. In this case also it
cannot be held that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC.
4 2 . That apart, the original case of the prosecution is that, there was a conspiracy
between the petitioners and the public servants, namely, CENTAC and Government
officials and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the offence has been committed.
However, that theory has not been established and the public servants were dropped
from the case, the petitioners alone have been charged for the offence under Section
420 IPC, and even for that, there is no material available on record prima facie make
out that offence.
43. The next contention of the learned senior counsel is that, only private trusts are
managing the medical colleges, and the petitioners are only trustees, and the petitioner
in Crl. O.P. No. 22832 of 2021 is only a Civil Engineer working in the college. As the
offence has been committed by the Trust, which is a corporate body, and in the absence
of any allegation that the petitioners are in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the
Trust, they cannot be made as an accused.
4 4 . Further according to the learned senior counsel, absolutely there is no material
available to show that the petitioners were involved in the admission process and they
have personally demanded huge fees and denied admission to the candidates. The
learned senior counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abraham Memorial
Educational Trust Vs. C. Suresh Babu reported in MANU/TN/1088/2012 : 2012 (2) MWN
(Cr.)(DCC) 161 (Mad.), wherein, it has been held that the Trust is have a status of
juristic person and it can prosecute/be prosecuted. Since the Trust has not been
prosecuted, petitioner trustees cannot be vicariously made liable and they cannot be
prosecuted. The learned senior counsel also relied upon some other judgments in
07-03-2025 (Page 14 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur
support of his contentions. As this Court has already held that prima facie no offence
has been made out against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC, there is no necessity
to decide this issue in the instant case.
45. Considering all the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the materials available on record do not contain the ingredients necessary for
the offence under Section 420 IPC, as no case is made out against the petitioners and
allowing the trial to continue will only lead to abuse of process of Court, in such
circumstances, this Court inclined to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners in C.C. Nos. 533, 530 and 532 of 2020 and 535 of 2021 pending on the file
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
4 6 . In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

07-03-2025 (Page 15 of 15) www.manupatra.com National Law University Jodhpur