The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a criminal case over alleged forgery and cheating against Dr. Vishal Noble Singh, the principal of Bishop Johnson School and College, Prayagraj.
A division bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked that no offence was made out against the appellant on a reading of the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet.
The Supreme Court noted that none of the offences were made out and allegations were made with malafide intent. Subsequently, the apex court quashed the FIR, Chargesheet and all consequential proceedings.
According to the complaint, the appellants cheated the students parents by forging Bishop Johnson School and College (BJS) affiliation documents and used the same for the Girls’ Wing of BJS. Pertinently, the FIR was registered under several provisions of the IPC, including for Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
Nonetheless, the appellant’s stance was that the Girls’ Wing of BJS started as a section of BJS, not as a new school. The same was done on the approval of the society, Diocese Education Board of Diocese of Lucknow (DEB), which is the managing body of BJS.
Furthermore, no forged document has been put forth concerning the alleged forgery of the CISCE (Council for India School Certificate Examination) affiliation document of BJS for the Girls’ Wing.
Meanwhile, one of the appellants roped in the case was Vinod Bihari Lal, Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute). Vinod Bihari Lal is also embroiled in another matter of alleged mass religious conversion, in which the Supreme Court has granted him interim protection.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court also noted that the second respondent, though served, has not appeared. Consequently, the Court orally pronounced the order. Additionally, the apex court also questioned the intent with which the FIR was filed. The Supreme Court stated that the allegation was made against the appellants with a malafide intent. The Court also opined that the case of Bhajan Lal would squarely apply to the facts of this case.