Ganesh Shivanand Nagre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7584 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ganesh Shivanand Nagre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:12257-DB


                                                                    apl.55.2025,judgment.odt
                                                     (1)

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.55 OF 2025

                           Ganesh Shivanand Nagre,
                           Aged about 31 Years,
                           Occupation : Nil,
                           R/o. Bhandari,
                           Tahsil Sindkhed Raja,
                           District Buldhana.                      .... APPLICANT

                                              // VERSUS //

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through Police Station Officer,
                        Police Station, Sakharkherda,
                        Tahsil Sindkhed Raja,
                        District Buldhana.

                 2.     Ranganath Kalyanrao Gawade,
                        Aged about 55 Years,
                        Occupation : Block Education Officer,
                        Panchayat Samiti Sindkhed Raja,
                        District Buldhana.
                        Presently R/o. At Post Bibi,
                        Tahsil Lonar, District Buldhana.      .... NON-APPLICANTS

                 -------------------------------------------
                     Mr. R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for the applicant.
                     Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
                     Mr. A. P. Sadavarte, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
                 -------------------------------------------

                                        CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                                                NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                                        RESERVED ON    : 11.11.2025
                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 17.11.2025

                      JUDGMENT :

(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. Admit.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel

of the parties.

apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

3. The application is preferred by the applicant under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for

quashing of the First Information Report in connection with

Crime No.89/2023 dated 06.03.2023 registered with Police

Station Sakharkherda, Tahsil Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana

for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B and

201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 and 6 of the

Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and

other Specified Examinations Act, 1982.

4. As per the contention of the applicant, he is a Science

graduate and now appeared for the post of Assistant (C & W) in

the Railways Recruitment Process. The Maharashtra State Higher

Secondary Board Exams were being conducted and the paper for

the subject Math was scheduled to be held on 03.03.2023. The

said paper was leaked by the teachers for financial benefits.

When the applicant along with the other friends was sitting, he

received a WhatsApp forward message which was the Maths

question paper it was actually leaked by the co-accused i.e.

accused No.1. After seeing the said forwarded message, he has

noticed that paper of Math was leaked, he immediately called

one Mayur Laxman Nikam Reporter of Channel Zee 24 and

disclosed to him about leak of Math question paper.

Immediately, the news was flashed and thereafter, the crime apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-

applicant No.2 against the unknown persons. During the

investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of various witnesses and the applicant was implicated

as accused No.8. In fact, the applicant is the whistle-blower due

to whom the fact of leakage of Math paper came into light. But,

the Investigating Officer has arraigned him as accused without

any material evidence collected against him.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who

submitted that the entire investigation papers only disclose that

the present applicant has received the Math leaked paper, except

the said allegation, there is absolutely no material to connect the

present applicant with the alleged offence. On the contrary, the

statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam shows that he has received a

phone call of the present applicant, who disclosed to him that the

Math paper of 12th standard was leaked, and therefore, he

flashed the news. Except this statement, there is no other

material to show the involvement of the present applicant. The

action of the present applicant is protected by the Whistle

Blowers Protection Act, 2014, and therefore, no purpose would

be served by forcing him to face the trial. In view of the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and

others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

SCC 335. The case of the applicant covers and FIR be quashed

against him.

6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and submitted that considering the grievous

allegation that the involvement of the present applicant was in

the leakage of the paper, at this stage, sufficient material is

there, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

7. Learned Counsel for the informant fairly submitted

that except the statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam, there is

absolutely no material to connect the present applicant with the

alleged offence.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the

investigation papers, the applicant is facing charge that his

involvement is in the leakage of question paper of Math of 12 th

standard of the year 2023. The entire investigation papers

disclose that the applicant has received the WhatsApp forward

which was a Math question paper, which was leaked by the

original accused No.1. Thus, only allegation against the present

applicant is that he received the said leaked Math paper on his

WhatsApp. During the investigation, though the Investigating

Officer has recorded various statements, except the allegation

that he has received the leaked question paper, no other

material came before the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

the statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam shows that he has

received the phone call of the present applicant on the same day

i.e. on 03.03.2023, who disclosed that the Math paper of 12 th

standard was leaked and he has forwarded the said paper on his

WhatsApp. He immediately flashed the said news on Zee 24

Channel and thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the unknown

person. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant

that in fact, the applicant is a whistle-blower has substance. The

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was enacted to establish a

mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any

allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse

of discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause

an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate

safeguards against victimisation of the person making such

complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental

thereto.

9. In view of the provisions of this act, the act was

enacted to give adequate protection to the persons reporting

corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion

which causes demonstrable loss to the Government or

commission of a criminal offence by a public servant or to

regularize mechanism to encourage such person to disclose the

information on corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

misuse of discretion by public servants or commission of a

criminal offence. The Act further determines the procedure to

inquire or cause to inquire into such disclosure and to provide

adequate safeguards against victimisation of the whistle blower,

that is the person making such disclosure. It also gives the

safeguards against victimisation of the person reporting matters

regarding the corruption by a public servant.

10. Admittedly, the investigation papers shows that it was

the present applicant who disclosed the said incident first to the

witness Mayur Laxman Nikam and thereafter the FIR came to be

lodged, therefore, the act of the present applicant deserves to be

protected in view of the provisions of the Whistle Blowers

Protection Act, 2014. Forcing him to face the trial would be the

abuse of the process of law.

11. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and

others referred supra the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the

guidelines to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is reproduced for the reference.

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the apl.55.2025,judgment.odt

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

12. In the light of the above discussion, the application of

the present applicant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we

proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.89/2023 dated 06.03.2023 registered with Police Station Sakharkherda, Tahsil Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Regular Criminal Case No.175/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkhed Raja, is hereby quashed to the extent of the present applicant Ganesh Shivanand Nagre.

The application is disposed of.

                                           (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J)            (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)


Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate     Sarkate.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/11/2025 11:14:47