Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a batch of petitions filed seeking quashing of FIRs filed against private schools, book sellers, and book publishers regarding unauthorised fee hike and sale of books with fake/duplicate International Standard Book Number (ISBN), the Single Judge Bench of B.P. Sharma, J., dismissed the petitions, holding that the material collected during investigation, prima facie, indicated that there was criminal collusion and conspiracy between the accused persons, whereby a monopolistic arrangement was deliberately created with the object of generating unlawful and excessive profits.
Background
According to the prosecution’s case, the petitioners were the principals, members of the Management Committee, and principal advisors in the private unaided schools of Jabalpur. The District Collector, Jabalpur, formed an Enquiry Committee (the Committee) to conduct an enquiry in the aforementioned private schools for alleged unauthorised increase in fees and sale of books having duplicate/fake ISBNs to the students. The Enquiry Committee consisted of 3 members. including the Complainant 3, the Block Education Officer, and a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
The Committee submitted its report (Enquiry Report) with the finding that the alleged schools, in the past few academic years, had increased the fee for more than the prescribed limit and included specific books in their syllabus, which were only available in certain selected shops and were sold with duplicate ISBNs. Hence, the Committee concluded that the aforesaid schools had breached the mandate of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vidyalaya (Fees Tatha Sambandhit Vishayon Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2017 (M.P. Private School Fees Act). Accordingly, certain actions, including punitive actions, were proposed to be taken against the school administration and its representatives, as well as the book sellers.
The Collector, relying on the Enquiry Report, passed orders directing various government authorities to lodge FIRs against the management and employees, such as the principal of various schools, booksellers, and book publishers. The Collector also uploaded a post on Facebook inviting parents of students to submit complaints, if any, against the school management and to verify the ISBNs of their books. Upon receipt of complaints, more enquiry committees were formed, and connected persons from 21 schools were called in for questioning by the police. Thereafter, upon insistence of the Collector, the complainants, principals of government schools, lodged multiple FIRs, including the aforesaid FIRs, against the present and other accused persons. Due to lodging the aforesaid FIRs, the present accused persons were arrested and sent to judicial custody. Subsequently, the petitioners were enlarged on bail by orders passed by the Supreme Court and this Court.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court perused Section 5(3)(b) and (c), M.P. Private School Fees Act, and the Court noted that the provision did not require the management of a private unaided school to obtain prior permission for enhancement of fees, as long as such an increase remains within the prescribed limit of 10 per cent from the preceding academic year. Further, the statutory scheme contemplates that, in cases of deviation, the competent authority can impose a monetary penalty along with a direction to refund any excess fee collected. However, the Act does not envisage the imposition of criminal liability upon functionaries such as principals, teachers, or members of the Management Committee.
The Court further noted that Section 15 provided for the overriding effect of the M.P. Private School Fees Act and reiterated that a special statute prevails over general law, as expounded by the Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18.
Thereafter, the Court noted that the orders passed by the Collector were challenged in writ proceedings wherein the coordinate Bench quashed the proceedings arising out of the Enquiry Report. The Division Bench held that the authorities acted beyond the scope of the M.P. Private School Act and directed the State to proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory framework. The Court remarked that the Division Bench’s order reflected reservations regarding the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the extent of interference with the management of private institutions.
Exclusive Availability and High Cost Margins
From the material placed on record, the Court noted that, evidently, the books prescribed by the school were not part of the open market supply chain and were made available only through a limited group of booksellers, including the accused herein. The investigation revealed that such books carried abnormally high margins, approximately to the extent of 69 per cent, which was wholly disproportionate to the actual printing and handling cost.
Noting this, the Court stated that the very nature of such pricing, when read in conjunction with the allegation that these books bore fake or duplicate ISBNs, prima facie, indicated that the pricing mechanism was not based on legitimate commercial considerations, but rather was structured to extract unlawful profits.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the information regarding selection of books and syllabus was not made public in terms of Rule 6(1)(a), Madhya Pradesh Niji Vidyalaya (Fees Tatha Sambandhit Vishayon Ka Viniyaman) Rules, 2020 (the Rules), but was selectively disclosed in advance to a few booksellers (accused herein), thereby allowing them to place orders 10—15 days before publication on the notice board or school portal. This fact, supported by documentary charts in the case diary, clearly demonstrated a coordinated pre-arrangement and meeting of minds, thereby constituting a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy.
Thus, the Court held that the allegation that parents and students were compelled, both directly and indirectly, to purchase books and stationery from specific vendors found support from the material collected during the investigation.
“The exclusivity of supply, coupled with the timing of disclosure and limited vendor access, creates a situation where parents had no real or effective choice, thereby resulting in coercive commercial practices.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that stationery items were also sold through the same channels with high margins, thereby augmenting the financial burden on parents. The cumulative financial impact, as reflected in the investigation, indicated that students were compelled to incur an additional expenditure of approximately Rs 53,36,858, which could not be brushed aside as incidental or insignificant.
Accordingly, the Court held that the material collected during the investigation, prima facie, indicated that there was criminal collusion and conspiracy between the accused school managements, selected booksellers (including the accused herein), and certain publishers, whereby a monopolistic arrangement was deliberately created with the object of generating unlawful and excessive profits.
ISBN Discrepancies
The Court noted that at the time of admission, parents were subjected to direct and indirect coercion to procure books bearing fake or duplicate ISBNs exclusively from the selected booksellers, including the accused persons herein, at exorbitant and unjustified prices, thereby reflecting a concerted scheme of exploitation and financial gain.
The Court stated that the nature of such books, bearing fake or duplicate ISBNs, prima facie, indicated that they were not part of the legitimate open market distribution and would ordinarily be available only to the entities involved in their printing and controlled circulation. It was also evident that the actual cost of such books was confined to printing and handling charges; however, the marked retail price of these books reflected an artificially inflated component, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, constituted an element of unlawful commission and fraudulent gain.
Noting this, the Court said that the seizure of books further strengthened the prosecution’s case, and the list of such books, along with their ISBN discrepancies and publisher mismatches, formed part of the record and could not be ignored at this stage.
Thus, the Court held that these facts prima facie established that the books in circulation were not genuine publications, in the strict sense, and were part of a controlled supply chain for illegal monetary gain to the accused persons.
Alteration of Prescribed Textbooks
Another significant finding of the investigation, the Court noted, was the unexplained and large-scale alteration of prescribed textbooks, wherein approximately 162 books from nursery to Class XII were replaced in a single academic session without any documented justification or decision-making process. No minutes of meetings or academic rationale were produced to explain such changes.
The Court held that this arbitrary replacement, when viewed in light of the exclusive supply arrangement and high profit margins, prima facie, indicated a deliberate attempt to create recurring demand and ensure continued financial benefit. The lack of transparency in the book selection process, coupled with the school managements’ failure to verify the authenticity of ISBNs, further substantiated the existence of a deliberate conspiracy and active collusion.
Weight of School Bags
The Court noted that the number of prescribed books and stationery items for each class was disproportionately increased, thereby resulting in school bags exceeding the permissible limits of weight prescribed under applicable government guidelines. This inflation in the number of books, without any academic justification, not only imposed a physical burden upon the students but also directly escalated the financial burden on the parents.
Noting this, the Court held that such conduct, when viewed in conjunction with the exclusive supply mechanism and high-profit margins on books and stationery, indicated a deliberate design to compel parents to purchase unnecessary materials, thereby causing wrongful loss to them and corresponding unlawful gain to the accused persons. This aspect, therefore, formed an integral part of the alleged criminal conspiracy and could not be treated as a mere administrative lapse.
Financial Irregularities
The Court noted that several financial irregularities were discovered during the investigation, such as St. Aloysius School’s (the Society) 2020—2021 record, which showed an income of Rs 4.71 crores and expenditure of Rs 2.13 crores, which was paid to Jabalpur Diocesan Education Society (the Society). However, the audit report did not reflect any such liability of the school towards the said society. Thereafter, crores of rupees were paid to the Society by the School. There were glaring discrepancies between bank transactions and audited figures, including transfer of amounts far exceeding the recorded expenditure.
“These financial transactions, prima facie, indicate diversion of funds and lend further support to the allegation that the entire mechanism was designed to generate unlawful financial gain.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the documents and financial records annexed with the case diary, prima facie, demonstrated that substantial amounts were transferred by the school management and its principal to the Society without any lawful or accounted basis, indicating grave financial impropriety.
Other Contentions
The Court rejected the contention that the School principals were not liable for forgery since they were not the “makers” of the books or documents. The Court stated that the material on record did not attribute isolated or passive conduct to them; rather, it indicated their active participation in a larger chain of events involving selection, and advanced information of the aforesaid books to the bookseller. When such acts are viewed in the backdrop of a prima facie established conspiracy, the role of each participant could not be ignored or evaluated in isolation.
Regarding the witness statements, the Court noted that they lent support to the prosecution’s case and substantiated the allegations.
The Court rejected other contentions as well, stating that issues like the veracity of the ISBNs, the manner of their issuance, and the authenticity of the seized books were all matters that required detailed examination of evidence before the trial court. At this preliminary stage, it was neither permissible nor appropriate to undertake a meticulous analysis of such defence pleas, and the same were to be adjudicated during the course of trial.
In this regard, the Court reiterated the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and stated that in the present case, the allegations were supported by documentary evidence, seizure material, expert verification, and witness statements. The same could not be said to be inherently improbable or absurd. On the contrary, they disclosed a prima facie case requiring thorough adjudication.
The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence; where the uncontroverted material fails to disclose the commission of an offence; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive, the Court would be justified in intervening to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Decision
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court held that there was sufficient material indicating the involvement of the accused persons in a larger conspiracy involving the school management, selected booksellers, and publishers, aimed at generating unlawful financial gain through the circulation of books with fake or duplicate ISBNs and creation of a monopolistic supply chain. Thus, the case did not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.
“The material collected by the investigating agency, at this stage, prima facie discloses the existence of a structured and deliberate scheme involving the principal/school management, selected booksellers (including the present petitioners), and certain publishers, whereby books bearing fake or duplicate ISBNs were introduced into the academic curriculum and supplied exclusively through selected channels to generate unlawful financial gain.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all the petitions and directed the police to complete the remaining investigation expeditiously.
[Atul Anupam Abraham v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No.56032 of 2024, decided on 6-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek K. Tankha, Harshit Bari, and Shailendra Verma
For the respondent: Government Advocate Dinesh Prasad Patel
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
