Himanshu Rameshchandra Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Himanshu Rameshchandra Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/SCR.A/5386/2015                                  CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                                                          Reserved On   : 17/07/2025
                                                                          Pronounced On : 22/07/2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5386 of 2015


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No
                                                                                    ✔
                       ==========================================================
                                             HIMANSHU RAMESHCHANDRA TRIVEDI
                                                           Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI


                                                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned FIR bearing C.R. I No.46 of 2015, registered with Himmatnagar B Division Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 381, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:-

2. The petitioner is a distinguished professional, holding a postgraduate degree in Electronics from the School of Science, Gujarat University. He is the sole proprietor of Gujarat Enterprise, a reputed firm specializing in the printing of confidential examination materials and result processing for various recruitment examinations. Since the year 2000, the petitioner has Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined been entrusted with sensitive assignments by several statutory recruitment bodies of the State of Gujarat, including the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board (GSSSB), Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), Commissioner of Tribal Development, Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board (GPSSSB), and multiple District Panchayat Services Selection Committees (DPSSCs), thereby establishing a longstanding relationship of trust and reliability with government agencies.

2.1. In the year 2015, the petitioner was awarded a work order by the District Panchayat Services Selection Committee for comprehensive examination services--including printing of question paper booklets and OMR sheets, and processing of results--for the Talati-cum-Mantri recruitment examination scheduled on 06.06.2015. However, on the day of the examination, allegations of a question paper leak surfaced, resulting in the registration of the impugned FIR dated 06.06.2015 after two individuals were allegedly caught with leaked materials.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 31.07.2015 in connection with the said offence. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed on 01.08.2015. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, was pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 26.08.2015 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15143 of 2015.

2.3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet, has approached this Court seeking quashment of the same, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated without any credible material linking him to the alleged offence.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Tejal A. Vashi, appearing on behalf of the Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined petitioner, seeks quashment of the FIR as well as the chargesheet filed pursuant thereto. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and, therefore, no specific allegation has been levelled against him at the inception. She, however, fairly submitted that the petitioner had been entrusted with the task of printing, packing, and delivering the question papers for the District Panchayat Services Selection Committee (DPSSC) examination for the post of Talati Cum Mantri, and that at a later stage, he has been arraigned as Accused No.14 in the chargesheet.

3.1. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired that the question paper was allegedly leaked during the printing process. However, there is nothing on record, either in the FIR or in the chargesheet, to prima facie indicate that the petitioner was actively or knowingly involved in such alleged leak, nor is there any material to suggest that the leak was systemic or part of a wider conspiracy to undermine the examination process.

3.2. It is submitted that two of the petitioner's employees allegedly copied the question paper during the printing process and later appeared for the examination at the Himmatnagar Centre, which led to the registration of the FIR. Learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner had exercised due diligence and taken adequate precautions to ensure that none of the individuals employed by him were candidates appearing in the said examination.

3.3. She further submitted that assuming without admitting that the said employees may have indulged in unauthorised conduct, the same cannot render the petitioner vicariously liable, especially in the absence of any overt act or criminal intent attributable to him. The alleged act, at best, reflects an Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined isolated and unauthorised act of individual employees and not a deliberate or large-scale malpractice traceable to the petitioner.

3.4. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a reputed professional who has previously undertaken and successfully executed similar sensitive assignments for various DPSSC examinations and has even received letters of appreciation from competent authorities for his services. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law.

3.5. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR and the chargesheet filed against the petitioner be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:-

5. Strenuously opposing the petition, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Tirthraj Pandya submitted that the present case does not pertain to an ordinary instance of question paper leakage. He argued that the petitioner was fully aware that the question paper he was entrusted to print pertained to the recruitment examination for the post of Talati Cum Mantri, conducted by the District Panchayat Services Selection Committee (DPSSC). Despite this, the petitioner failed to maintain the confidentiality and sanctity of the examination material.

5.1. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner, having undertaken the responsibility of printing, packing, and delivering the examination papers, was under a bounden duty to ensure that the integrity and secrecy of the papers remained intact throughout the process. The breach of this duty, Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined resulting in the leak of the question paper, constitutes a serious lapse for which the petitioner cannot escape accountability.

5.2. It was further contended that the nature and extent of the leak-- whether systematic or isolated--is a matter of factual determination that can be adjudicated only during the course of trial. At the stage of quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into, and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

5.3. Learned APP emphasized that the occurrence of the leak is not in dispute, nor is the fact that the petitioner was the agency entrusted with printing, packing, and delivering the question papers. The sequence of events, therefore, clearly points towards culpable negligence, if not active involvement, warranting a full-fledged trial.

5.4. It was also submitted that given the alarming rise in incidents of examination paper leaks, the Legislature has enacted the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, which specifically criminalizes such conduct. Under the said Act, the offense is cognizable and non-bailable, and the prescribed punishment extends up to five years of imprisonment along with a fine of up to ₹10 lakhs. The offense is also categorized as organized crime under the statutory scheme.

5.5. In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory framework, and the prima facie material available on record, learned APP urged this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present petition, and permit the prosecution to proceed in accordance with law.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel, appearing for respondent No. 2, submitted that the individuals employed by the petitioner were responsible for leaking the question paper, which clearly reflects a lack of due diligence and absence of reasonable care in the process of printing, packing, and dispatching the examination material. The breach in this process culminated in the leakage of the paper, which surfaced at the Himmatnagar examination centre, ultimately resulting in the registration of the FIR at the behest of the Himmatnagar Panchayat authorities.

6.1. Learned Advocate further submitted that during the course of investigation, the active role of the petitioner came to light, thereby establishing a prima facie link between the petitioner and the alleged offense. It is, therefore, manifest that the petitioner was complicit in the act of question paper leakage.

6.2. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 35, to contend that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, ought not to undertake a detailed inquiry or conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing an FIR or chargesheet.

6.3. On these grounds, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 vehemently prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:-

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, the following undisputed facts emerge for consideration:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 7.1. The District Panchayat Services Selection Committee (DPSSC) had resolved to conduct competitive examinations for recruitment to various posts including Junior Clerk, Talati Cum Mantri, Female Health Worker, etc. The format of the examination comprised question papers and OMR sheets.

The DPSSC entered into a contractual agreement with the present petitioner for the purpose of printing, packing, and dispatching the examination materials. The said process was expected to be carried out with precision, within the stipulated timeframe, and in strict adherence to the prescribed standards. A copy of the agreement is annexed on record at page 236. The terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the parties are as under:-

"1. During the subsistence of this Agreement for the work of printing of confidential material of any of the said examination and, so far as it concerns the Question Papers and OMR Sheets as The Chairman, DPSSC may please and The Party hereby agrees and undertakes to carry out the work of printing that may be entrusted to him/them by The Chairman, DPSSC efficiently and punctually in the manner and within time as may be required by The Chairman, DPSSC and to maintain faithfully and diligently the confidence reposed by The Chairman, DPSSC entering into this Agreement with The Party.

2. The Chairman, DPSSC shall pay for the work to be carried out by The Party under this Agreement at the rate and in the manner set out in Annexure which is annexed to this Agreement which shall form part and parcel of this Agreement.

3. The Party shall provide at his / their own expense, competent proofreaders for ensuring correctness, accuracy in the job of printing. In any case it shall be obligatory on the part of The party to ensure the correctness and the accuracy in respect of manuscript and in the job of printing.

4. This agreement shall be for various examinations to be arranged by The Chairman, DPSSC from time to time.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement The Chairman, DPSSC shall be entitled without prejudice to any right of action accruing or already accrued to either party by notice in writing to The Party forthwith to terminate this Agreement at any time if:

a. There shall be any breach or series of breaches of this Agreement or any provision hereof by The Party.

b. The Party's works premises or business shall be so damaged, impeded, interrupted or interfered with by force majeure (as hereinafter defined) as to render it unlikely that The Party will be able to continue to comply strictly with the requirements of this Agreement.

6. If and to the extent that The party shall on any occasion for any reason whatsoever fail to perform his obligations whether as to time or otherwise The Chairman, DPSSC may in respect of such failure be entitled to have the work carried out by any other persons or firm or company provided that if and to the extent that such failure is caused by or arise from force majeure (as hereinafter defined) such failure shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement.

7. In this clause 6 force majeure means any event or circumstance arising from natural causes beyond the control of The Party such as fire, floods, earthquake or breaking of war.

8. If and to the extent that the material provided by the party varies from specifications and if the said examination is adversely affected the penalty as may be decided by The Chairman, DPSSC will be charged.

9. In case of failure to the contractual obligations by The Party, the procedure to black list The Party from the Government of Gujarat works will be made by The Chairman, DPSSC.

10. It is agreed that the time for performance on the mutual obligations of the parties hereto is of the essence of this agreement.

11. All or any disputes in the matter of work assigned to The Party or concerning this Agreement or matters connected herewith shall be subject to jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Court only."

7.2. Given the serious, responsible and sensitive nature of the assignment

--pertaining to the printing of question papers and preparation of Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined examination results--the petitioner was under a strict obligation to uphold confidentiality and ensure that at no stage, and from no source, any part of the examination materials, including question papers and OMR sheets, were leaked or compromised.

7.3. At this stage, reference may be made to the gist of allegations as outlined in the last column of the chargesheet, which is as under:-

"As per the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, namely Sections 406, 408, 381, 201, and 120-B, it is alleged that the accused persons named in Column No. 1 of the chargesheet, in collusion with juveniles in conflict with the law named in Column No. 2, entered into a criminal conspiracy. The object of the said conspiracy was to compromise the integrity of the recruitment examination for the post of Talati cum Mantri and other posts conducted by the Gujarat District Panchayat Service Selection Committee (DPSSC). In furtherance of this conspiracy, the contract for printing, binding, packing, and delivery of the confidential question papers to various district-level examination centres was awarded to the agency M/s. Gujarat Enterprise, a firm allegedly controlled by accused No. 14. Pursuant to this, the question papers were printed and packed at Plot No. 484/2, Sector-8, Gandhinagar. In Sector-25, the process of packing the question papers commenced at Plot No. B/237, wherein juveniles in conflict with the law, as mentioned in Column No. 2, were engaged. These sealed question papers were loaded into a tempo and transported to Mansuri Bhavan, located in Alampur village. During this process, the sealed packets were delivered to Accused No. 13 (as shown in Column No. 1), who was responsible for loading the tempo. It is alleged that the question paper of the Talati-cum-Mantri examination was unlawfully accessed and stolen in connivance with Juvenile Offender No. 1. In furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the said juvenile, along with Accused Nos. 1 and 12, who were candidates for the said examination, facilitated the theft of the question paper. Juvenile No. 1 delivered the stolen paper to Accused Nos. 1 and 12, who then reproduced the contents by transcribing them onto blank sheets and produced multiple photocopies. Accused No. 1 subsequently handed over copies to Accused Nos. 2, 5, and 11, all of whom were candidates for the Talati-cum-Mantri examination. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 approached Accused No. 7 for solving the paper and handed over Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the original to him. Accused No. 7 in turn passed the question paper to Accused Nos. 8 and 9. Accused No. 9 later destroyed the original question paper by burning it, thereby obliterating material evidence. This fact was corroborated through the apprehension of Juvenile No. 2, also in conflict with the law.

In another instance, Juvenile No. 2, acting in conspiracy, unlawfully obtained the original Talati-cum-Mantri question paper on or around 3-5 June 2015 and passed it to Accused No. 6, who subsequently destroyed the document by setting it ablaze. Furthermore, Accused No. 10, along with Juvenile No. 3 (as per Column No. 2), conspired to commit theft of the said examination paper. Juvenile No. 3 accordingly stole and delivered the paper to Accused No. 10, who also incinerated the material to eliminate evidence. Accused No. 13, who was entrusted with the responsibility of transporting the examination material, is alleged to have reproduced the stolen paper and created photocopies thereof. Both the original and copied versions were subsequently destroyed. However, one of the photocopies was forwarded to Accused No. 2 through Accused Nos. 3 and 4. In exchange for access to the leaked paper, a sum of ₹50,000 was allegedly demanded. It is further alleged that the juveniles named in Column No. 2, in conspiracy with Accused No. 13, breached the fiduciary duty entrusted upon them by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, and unlawfully misappropriated the Talati-cum-Mantri examination papers. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are alleged to have unlawfully received and utilized the said leaked material. The accused, having broken the trust reposed by the State Government's District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, deliberately destroyed confidential examination material and tampered with documentary evidence. Notably, on 06.06.2015, during the conduct of the Talati Grade Ministerial Examination at Myon High School, Himmatnagar, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (juveniles) were apprehended in possession of the leaked and photocopied examination material during the official examination window of 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Accused No. 14, being the proprietor of M/s. Gujarat Enterprise, to whom the contract for printing, OMR sheet handling, and result processing was awarded by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, grossly violated the terms of the contract by failing to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the examination process. The engagement of unskilled and unauthorized persons further resulted in a complete breach of duty and trust placed by the State Government's competent authority"

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 7.4. It is alleged that accused no. 14, along with certain juveniles in conflict with law, hatched a criminal conspiracy. After the printing of the question papers and OMR sheets, the petitioner undertook the packing process at two premises--Plot No. 484/2, Sector 8, and Plot No. B/237, Sector 25, Gandhinagar. During this phase, multiple juveniles--whose names are reflected in Column No. 2 of the chargesheet--were employed by the petitioner and engaged in the packing of question papers within the petitioner's premises. These question papers were intended for delivery to the examination centre at Alampur village.

7.5. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 12, who were aspirants- candidates intending to appear in the said examination, came into contact with the juvenile accused. In the course of this interaction, a copy of the question paper was stolen, handed over to accused Nos. 1 and 12, and subsequently duplicated. Photocopies of the same were then distributed to accused nos. 5 and 11, resulting in the widespread leakage of the paper.

7.6. The entire sequence of events leading to the leakage occurred during the period when the petitioner retained exclusive custody and control over the processes of printing, packing, and dispatching the question papers. Thus, not only did the petitioner breach the express terms of the contractual agreement, but also played a direct and pivotal role in the commission of the alleged offence. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to ensure that utmost secrecy was maintained with respect to the examination material. However, the petitioner demonstrably failed in this statutory and contractual obligation, as the leak occurred during the execution of duties assigned to him. Leakage of question papers of public examination is not a private dispute, having access only to the private person, but its ramification is large-scale and affects society at large. In-charge of printing, packing, and Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined delivering question papers of public examination cannot escape from liability on the ground that some of the persons he has hired for the purpose have leaked papers.

7.7. The relationship between the petitioner and the District Panchayat Services Selection Committee (DPSSC) is essentially fiduciary in nature, founded on trust and confidence reposed in the petitioner to safeguard the integrity of a public recruitment process. A statutory colour has been imparted to this fiduciary relationship by virtue of the formal agreement executed between the parties.

8. In light of the growing menace of such malpractices in public examinations, the legislature was compelled to enact a stringent special law titled "The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024", which came into effect on 21st June 2024, via government notification.

Section 2(h) of the said Act defines "organized crime" as under:

"organised crime" means an unlawful activity committed by a person or a group of persons indulging in unfair means in collusion and conspiracy to pursue or promote a shared interest for wrongful gain in respect of a public examination;

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

9. 'Unfair means' in the definition of 'organized crime' in Section 2(h) has been explained in Section 3, which is as under:-

"3. Unfair means.- The unfair means relating to the conduct of a public examination shall include any act or omission done or caused to be done by any person or group of persons or institutions, and include but not be restricted to, any of the following acts for monetary or wrongful gain--

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

(i) leakage of question paper or answer key or part thereof;

(ii) participating in collusion with others to effect leakage of question paper or answer key;

(iii) accessing or taking possession of question paper or an Optical Mark Recognition response sheet without authority;

(iv) providing solution to one or more questions by any unauthorised person during a public examination;

(v) directly or indirectly assisting the candidate in any manner unauthorisedly in the public examination;

(vi) tampering with answer sheets including Optical Mark Recognition response sheets;

(vii) altering the assessment except to correct a bona fide error without any authority;

(viit) willful violation of norms or standards set up by the Central Government for conduct of a public examination on its own or through its agency;

(ix) tampering with any document necessary for short-listing of candidates or finalising the merit or rank of a candidate in a public examination;

(x) deliberate violation of security measures to facilitate unfair means in conduct of a public examination;

(xi) tampering with the computer network or a computer resource or a computer system; (xii) manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of dates and shifts for the candidates to facilitate adopting unfair means in examinations;

xiit) threatening the life, liberty or wrongfully restraining persons associated with the public examination authority or the service provider or any authorised agency of the Government; or obstructing the conduct of a public examination;

(xiv) creation of fake website to cheat or for monetary gain; and

(xv) conduct of fake examination, issuance of fake admit cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary gain."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

10. The alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024; however, having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the leakage of the question paper during the tenure and under the contractual supervision of the petitioner would attract penal consequences. It is an undisputed position that a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner, and at present, the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter.

11. Recently, in the case of Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2003) 8 SCC 734:2023 SCC OnLine SC 949, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that once a chargesheet is filed, it is appropriate to allow the trial court to proceed with the case, and that interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted at that stage. It was observed as under:-

"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We 2025:HHC: 13252 say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

12. The contention raised by learned Advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi, that the petitioner was not directly involved in the question paper leak and had exercised due diligence and reasonable precaution to prevent any breach, appears to be untenable and implausible at this stage, and such a defence is a matter of trial and not of quashing.

13. In the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand; (2025) 1 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, cannot embark upon a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference 2025:HHC:13252 can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399:2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial.

7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5386/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined

14. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is DISMISSED. However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition, and the trial court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, is discontinued.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:09:34 IST 2025