[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sayyad Hasan S/O Sayyad Nisar Ali vs State Of Mah.Thr. Ps Jaripatka Nagpur ... on 2 April, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:5329-DB


                                                                                                                          48apl1123.2023.odt
                                                                      1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1123 OF 2023


              APPLICANT                               :-            Sayyad Hasan s/o Sayyad Nisar Ali,
              (ON RA)                                               Aged about 58 years, Occupation:
                                                                    Teacher, R/o Plot No. 138, Teachers
                                                                    Colony, Thakur Plot, Motha Tajbagh,
                                                                    Nagpur, Tq. and District Nagpur.

                                                                                               ..VERSUS..

              NON-                                    :- 1) State of Maharashtra,
              APPLICANTS                                    through Police Station Jaripatka,
                                                            Nagpur City, Nagpur Tq. and District
                                                            Nagpur.

                                                            2) Bandu s/o Sudamji Kalambe, Aged
                                                               about 48 years, Occupation: Police
                                                               Constable, Police Station, Jaripatka,
                                                               Nagpur City, Nagpur, Tq. and
                                                               District   Nagpur.     [In    Official
                                                               capacity]

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. J.B. Kasat, counsel for applicant.
                      Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1 and 2.
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              CORAM                  : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
                              DATE                   : 02/04/2026

                    ORAL JUDGMENT :

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned

counsel for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicant

Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The present application is preferred by the applicant

for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 228 of

2019 registered by the Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur City,

Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468,

471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and

Section 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Malpractices at Board, University and Other Specified

Examination Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of

1982'), along with the consequent proceedings arising out of

Regular Criminal Case No. 1686 of 2023, pending before the

Court of 17th Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial

Magistrate First class, Nagpur.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. It is

submitted that the present applicant is a teacher who was

appointed on 09/12/1993 in the schools run by Nagpur

Municipal Corporation and was due for retire on 31/07/2023. rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents

against him and he was appointed by the Maharashtra State

Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur

Divisional Board as well as Amravati Divisional Board as

Moderator, Paper-setter, and Valuer, etc. for the 10th Board

examinations since last many years.

5. On 12/03/2019, the FIR came to be registered on

the basis of a report lodged by the complainant namely Bandu

Kalambe, a Police Constable. It is alleged that, in view of the

secrete information, a trap was arranged by the police

consisting of police staff which accosted the other co-accused

Tanmay Badole. During the search operation, incriminating

material such as answer sheets of English subject of 10th board

examination and 12th standard of Physics and Biology

examinations were seized. The documents prima-facie

revealed the affixing of dummy photos of the students on the

identity card, and thus the material seized from them prima-

facie suggested commission of the offenses. Therefore, on the

basis of the report lodged by the said police constable, the

crime came to be registered against the co-accused under

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 7 of the Act, 1982.

6. During the investigation, the investigating officer

has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses. After

completion of the investigation, it was revealed to the

investigating officer that present applicant was also involved,

as he was the custodian of the said center. Therefore, the

present applicant was also arraigned as an accused in the said

crime.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, on

perusal of the entire investigation papers, except the

statement of one Mohd. Nizamuddin Imtaiz Ali, only to the

extent of referring the name of the present applicant, no

specific role is attributed to the present applicant. On the

contrary, the statement shows that he is not aware whether

anybody was coming to the present applicant and he is

connected with the other co-accused or not. Thus, he

submitted that there is no single document or statement of

witnesses which discloses any connection between the present

applicant and the other co-accused.

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

8. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited my

attention to the summary of the chargesheet and submitted

that, as far as the present applicant is concerned, the

summary of the chargesheet only shows that the it revealed to

the investigating agency that present applicant was also

involved in the said crime. However, neither the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC nor the

offence punishable under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1982

is made out against the present applicant. Thus, in the

absence of any prima-facie case against the present applicant,

the application deserves to be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and submitted that, considering the present

applicant was working as a moderator of the said examination

and was custodian of that center, and the alleged incident has

also occurred at that center and therefore, as per the duty

allotted to him, he is responsible for any misdeed committed

at the said center. Therefore, a prima-facie case is made out

against the present applicant, in view of that, the application

deserves to be rejected.

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

10. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is

necessary to see what are the ingredients are required to

establish the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

For the constitution of the offence under Section 420 of the

IPC the essential ingredients offence of cheating described in

Section 415 IPC is that whoever, by deceiving any person,

fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to

deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any

person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the

person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he

would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which

act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to

that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to

"cheat".

11. Thus, to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined

under Section 415 of the IPC, it is necessary to show that he

had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making

any promise, with an intention to retain the promise. In other

words, Section 415 of the IPC, which defined cheating

requires deception of any person by (i) inducing that person

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

(ii) to deliver any property to any person (iii) to consent that

any person shall retain any property (iv) intentionally induces

the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he

would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such act

or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm

to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

12. The another offence allegedly under Section 468 of

IPC. Section 468 of IPC deals with forgery for purpose of

cheating. The definition of forgery is given under Section 463

with state that whoever makes any false document or false

electronic record or part of a document or electronic record

with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any

person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person

to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied

contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be

committed, commits forgery. Section 471 deals with using the

said document as a genuine one.

13. The present applicant is further prosecuted for the

offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act of 1982, which

deals with prohibition of supply or publication of any question

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

paper before examination is held. Whoever has in his

possession any question paper set or purported to be set for

any examination and supplies or causes to be supplied or

offers to supply a copy thereof, or communicates or offers to

communicate the contents thereof, to any person, whether for

any consideration or otherwise, or gives publicity thereto in

any manner, except in accordance with the instructions issued

in writing by an authorised officer of the University, Board or

other authority concerned with the examination, at any time

before the examination is held, shall, on conviction, be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand

rupees, or with both. Section 7 deals with prohibition of

copying and impersonating at examination. Thus, as far as

Section 7 is concerned, which is applicable against the co-

accused

14. Considering the entire investigation papers, it has to

be seen whether the offence punishable under Section 6 is

made out against the present applicant. The entire

investigation papers, no where discloses that either the

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

present applicant was in possession of any question papers set

or purported to be set for any examination and supplied or

causes to be supplied or offers to supply a copy thereof, or

communicates or offers to communicate the contents thereof.

Thus entire FIR and the entire investigation papers silent as to

the fact that the present applicant has either in possession of

any question paper, which was already set or which was

purported to be set or he has supplied any copy or any

communication or was there any offer to communicate the

said information to anyone. The FIR does not disclose even

the bare ingredients of the offence alleged against the present

applicant. The complainant has nowhere stated as far as the

act of the present applicant is concerned.

15. During investigation, the investigation officer has

recorded the relevant statements of the witness, neither the

FIR nor this statement discloses that it was the present

applicant was in possession of any question paper which was

already set or which was purported to be set, and he has

either communicated or offered anybody to supply the copy of

the same. Thus, in the absence of the any material on record,

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

it would be difficult to say that the offence under Section 6 is

made out against the present applicant.

16. As the basic ingredients of the offence punishable

under Section 6 of the Act of 1982, itself is absent in the

present case. The careful reading of the complaint and the

entire investigation paper nowhere shows that the name of

the present applicant was mentioned stating that he has either

parted any information with any of the co-accused or there is

any communication between the present applicant and the co-

accused. Therefore, the offence under Section 6 is not made

out, and in the light of that, the offence under Section 420 is

also not made out, as the FIR is completely silent about the

basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420

of the IPC. Admittedly, for constitution of the offence

punishable under Section 420, intention since inception is

required, which nowhere discloses from the entire

investigation papers.

17. As far as the forgery is concerned, entire

investigation papers, even the statement of one of the

witnesses on which the prosecution relied upon i.e. Mohd.

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

Nizamuddin Imtaiyaz Ali, specifically states that he is

unaware about the fact whether anybody was coming to the

present applicant or there was any communication between

him and the other co-accused. His statement only to the

extent that the he knows the present applicant, who is

resident of Mominpura. Except that, the said statement

nowhere discloses any role attributed to the present applicant.

18. Thus, considering the absence of entire prima facie

case against the present applicant, and the question would

arise on what basis charge-sheet is filed by the prosecution by

stating that his involvement is revealed, when the prosecution

completely could not establish on what basis the investigating

officer has come to the conclusion regarding the involvement

of the present applicant. In view of that, prima-facie case is

made out by the present applicant to show that his

involvement is merely on the basis that he is serving or he

was working on that center. Except his presence at the center,

admittedly, there is absolutely no material collected during

the investigation by the Investigating Officer.

19. The parameters which are laid down by the Hon'ble

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan

Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , which reproduced

as under :-

(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-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) rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.

20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant,

and therefore the application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt

ORDER

a] The criminal Application is allowed.

b] The FIR in connection with Crime No. 228 of

2019 registered by the Police Station, Jaripatka,

Nagpur City, Nagpur for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section