The Delhi High Court has recently said that every student who uses unfair means in the examinations should be dealt with a heavy hand and taught a lesson.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the students, who resort to unfair means and get away with it, cannot be the building blocks of this nation.

The bench further said that these students cannot be dealt leniently and they should be made to learn a lesson not to adopt unfair means in their life

The bench said this while dismissing an appeal filed by engineering student Yogesh Parihar, who contested the Delhi Technical University (DTU) order that had cancelled his second semester exams because he was found using unfair means in examinations in two subjects.

Earlier, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had refused to interfere with the DTU order.

As per the information available, a mobile phone was found in possession of another student which had WhatsApp group called ‘Ans,’ in which answers to the questions and the question papers were being shared amongst 22 students.

Parihar was a member of this group. The Scrutiny Committee of DTU found that Parihar was in knowledge of the fact that he was a part of the WhatsApp group and and said the phone was being used by his roommate Vatan Tomar.

The Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the DTU imposed category-IV punishment on Parihar and cancelled his exams. He was also asked to register himself again for the second semester.

After going through the arguments and documents presented, the Division Bench held that the reasoning of the VC does not require any interference.

The bench said that few students were able to get hold of the question paper and shared the answers amongst themselves, giving them unfair advantage against students who had worked hard.

The Court added that the University has been lenient in imposing category-IV punishment rather than rusticating the cheaters.

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an accused in a rape case can be convicted on the statement of the prosecutrix provided the statement is accepted by the Court and is found to be reliable, while dismissing a plea to quash the FIR against the accused. (Shri Aishwarya Bindal V The State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.)

However, the Court has directed the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously within a year, as the accused is a youngster and an engineering student and the entire life of the petitioner/accused is at stake. 

A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “It is well settled that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are unlimited and that in the interest of justice, the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Court pronounced its decision on a petition filed by a man accused and charged in a rape case on the false pretext of marriage. The prosecutrix levelled allegations against the accused person that he raped her several times in several different places/hotels on the false promise of marriage. The accused also levelled the allegations on the complainant/prosecutrix that she has forced him to make physical contact. The Delhi High Court said it’s a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage in writ jurisdiction. 

It was also observed by the Court that “This is not a stage to determine as to whether the defence raised by the accused is correct or not. It is settled that even if the accused is successful in raising a suspicion or doubt in allegations levelled by the prosecution or the complainant, the High Court while entertaining a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR cannot evaluate the defence and discharge the accused before the trail.”

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the prosecutrix met the petitioner two times in jail which would show that the allegations against the petitioner are false. He also mentioned about the statement made by the Ms Isha Gupta (Common friend of prosecutrix and the accused)to the Police.

The Counsel appearing for the State mentioned that the petitioner is accused of heinous crime of rape. She stated that the statement of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to convict the accused.

The Court said, “The question as to whether the consent for intercourse was given due to promise of marriage or that the allegation of promise of marriage was a mere ruse to file a case against the accused/petitioner under Section 376 Cr.P.C or whether such a promise was made at all, can be determined only after the prosecutrix is examined and after the prosecution places the entire case. The fact that the prosecutrix has levelled a similar allegation against another person and has turned hostile, though is a very important fact but it alone cannot be the basis of quashing the complaint. It is for the prosecution to establish that it was the petitioner/accused who brought the prosecutrix to Karnal on the pretext of meeting his mother. This court, at this juncture, cannot go into the antecedents of the prosecutrix to quash the complaint as it would be improper to do so. The antecedents of the prosecutrix would be an important factor which the trial Court will have to take into account during the final hearing of the case. It is well settled that the petitioner can be convicted on the statement of the prosecutrix provided the statement is accepted by the Court and is found to be reliable. Both sides have given their own versions and the correctness of the version given by each side can be tested only during trial. The material relied on by the accused is not of such nature and is not sufficient to completely reject and over-rule the assertions contained in the complaint. This Court is therefore not inclined to quash the FIR on the basis of the available material.”

Read Also: If cleared, Cryptocurrency Bill will impose ban on cryptocurrency deals

The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a civil engineering student for carrying a live cartridge in his bag while he was travelling from Texas, USA to his home in Bhilai District, Chhattisgarh via Delhi airport. 

A single-judge bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna said,

“No fire mark or weapon has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner nor had he extended any threat to any person or any police official but despite this fact that the present FIR registered against him.”

The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court wherein in similar cases, it had quashed the FIRs under Section 25 Arms Act. The crux of the judgments dealt with the conscious possession of the cartridge. Wherein the Court had on many occasion ruled, Mere recovery of the cartridge itself is not sufficient to prove the offence in the absence of any intention.

In the present the case, the petitioner is a civil engineering student, completing his masters from the Texas A and M University USA and is a permanent resident of Bhilai District, Chhattisgarh. He had completed his primary and secondary education from Bhilai. He also completed his Bachelors in 2017 in Civil Engineering from NIT, Raipur.

It is his case that he went for the first time along with his friends to a fire range shop at Texas for shooting practice. After the shooting practice, the entire floor was littered with bullets. The petitioner was carrying a hand bag along with him. There were many people inside the practise area. It was a possibility that somebody may have placed a bullet cartridge in the petitioner’s front bag pocket or it may have dropped accidentally in the front pocket of the handbag. He had no knowledge that there was a cartridge in the handbag. He took the bag along with him while returning to his residence from the fire range shop. The petitioner booked a ticket to Delhi. He stuffed the bag with two laptops, chargers and headphone. He was not aware of the bullet cartridge lying in the bag. 

When he boarded the flight from Houston, Texas, nobody raised an objection. When he reached New Delhi and was about to board a domestic flight to his hometown, the scanning operator observed a live cartridge and an empty case in his handbag. When the same was checked physically and one live bullet and one empty case were recovered from the bag, and hence the present FIR was registered against him. 

The Delhi High Court held,

“Considering the facts and the law stated above, the facts do not show the petitioner was in conscious possession of a live cartridge and an empty case. There is nothing on record to support the same, hence in the circumstances, the FIR No.258/2020 under Section 25 Arms Act registered against the petitioner at PS-IGI Airport, Delhi and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom stands quashed.” 

Also Read: Delhi Congress VP files PIL in Delhi HC, asks Centre to reveal funds allotted to three municipal corporations

The Court also directed the authorities to release his passport.