Madras High Court Stays Investigation Against Periyar University VC, Says Prosecution Instituted With Ulterior Motive

Justice Anand Venkatesh stayed the investigation pending the disposal of a plea by Jaganathan to quash the FIR against him. The court opined that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offence. After considering the materials, the court also opined that the prosecution was instituted with an ulterior motive.

“In the instant case, considering the materials placed before this Court, this Court finds that the criminal prosecution has been instituted with an ulterior motive. It is the duty of this Court to look into the attending circumstances, emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments made in the FIR,” the court said.

The case against Jaganathan was initiated based on the complaint from one I. Elangovan, President of the Association of University Teachers. In his complaint, Elangovan had alleged that Jaganathan and the Registrar (in charge) of the University along with three others had formed a company named Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation (PUTER Foundation) without getting permission/sanction of the University or the Government with an intention to misappropriate money. It was further alleged that when this was questioned, Jaganathan abused in filthy language using caste names.

The court noted that in 2013, the Government had issued an order deciding to set up incubation and technology transfer centres in 9 universities under the control of the Higher Education Department. Following this, steps were taken to establish the incubation and technology transfer centre at Periyar University, and a committee was formed with the Registrar as the Coordinator.

The court also noted that the PUTER Park was registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act and a place was also identified to set up the centre following which the agenda of the committee's meeting was handed over to the concerned authority in a sealed cover.

The court observed that the allegations in the FIR did not make out an offence as there was nothing to show that there was misappropriation of funds. The court also noted that the statements made by the entities with the MoUs were entered would also show that no money transfer was made. The court also observed that the information was available on the website of the University and not “shrouded in secrecy”.

The court added that the allegations regarding casteist slur were out of the blue and without any context and just an attempt to spice up the complaint. The court thus stayed the investigation.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

Case Title: R Jaganathan v State and Others