Arjun Shivsingh Sulane vs The State Of Mah. Thr. In Charge, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2556 Bom

Bombay High Court

Arjun Shivsingh Sulane vs The State Of Mah. Thr. In Charge, ... on 12 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4216-DB



                                                                               26 apl 910.23.odt..odt
                                                     1


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

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 910 OF 2023

                1.      Arjun Shivsingh Sulane
                        Aged about 24 years,
                        Occupation :Education,
                        R/o Pachapirwadi, Tq. and Dist.
                        Aurangabad                                                        APPLICANT

                                                 // V E R S U S //

                1.       The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through In Charge,                                           NON-APPLICANT
                        Gittikhadan Police Station,
                        Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the applicant.
                Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 04.03.2026
                JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- 12.03.2026

                ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

3. The present application is filed by the applicant for

quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime

No.8/2022 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station

Gittikhadan District Nagpur under Sections 120-B, 177, 193, 196,

197, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 198 and 199 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short, 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising out of

the same RCC No.1151/2022.

4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report

lodged by Milind Tayade, ASI attached to Gittikhadan Police

Station on an allegation that the recruitment process for post of

police constable for 270 posts was initiated. In pursuance to the

said recruitment process, public notice also came to be published.

The aspirant candidates have applied for the posts. On 28.10.2021

preliminary written examination came to be conducted at Nagpur

and Akola District. The physical test of the qualified candidates

came to be conducted in the month of December, 2021 i.e. on

07.12.2021, 08.12.2021 and 09.12.2021. The candidates who

applied for the post had supplied their photographs at the time of

submitting online application. The videography of written test

conducted at the examination hall discloses that certain 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

candidates had appeared in the place of original candidates. It

revealed that one Vishal Lakwal received an amount of Rs.13

Lakhs from two candidates and impersonated by putting duplicate

two candidates on their place for written and physical

examination for the recruitment of the police. It is also alleged

that many candidates have committed this illegality which reveals

from the CCTV footage. It further reveals that, four candidates

namely 1) Rahul Ghusinge, 2) Sunil Naglot, 3) Arjun Jarwal and

Arjun Sulane (present applicant) had not in fact appeared during

the written examination and in their place some other candidates,

appeared for the said examination which discloses in the

videography which was recorded during the examination. On the

basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against

the present applicant and other co-accused. After registration of

the crime during investigation it was found that applicant is

having connection with several other accused. They entered into

conspiracy and some of the accused appeared for the examination

in the place of the candidates. The application forms as well as

documents supplied by the applicant and other accused persons

for the purpose of recruitment police constable post also came to

be obtained. The video recording has been forwarded to the 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

forensic laboratory. On the basis of the said material collected

during the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the

present applicant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who

submitted that as far as present applicant is concerned, except

handwriting experts report there is absolutely no material to

connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. He

submitted that on the basis of the false, baseless allegations he is

implicated in the alleged offence. There is only suspicion to the

police on the basis of the CCTV footage, in fact applicant himself

has attended the examination and hence, allegation of dummy

candidate at the end of applicant is false. The allegations are

based merely by comparison some photos with CCTV footage and

that cannot be a valid evidence. The applicant is student and

pursuing his career. For all above these grounds application

deserves to be allowed. In support of his contention he placed

reliance on the decision of Magan Bihari Lal vs. The State of

Punjab reported in (1977) 2 SCC 210, C. Kamalakkannan vs. State

of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D.,

Chennai reported in (2025) 4 SCC 487.

26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

6. Per contra learned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and invited my attention towards the various

documents and submitted that total 11 accused came to be

arrested. Since some of the accused are absconding. The video

recording came to be obtained. The application form as well as

documents supplied by the applicants and other accused person

for the purpose of recruitment of police constable post also came

to be obtained.

7. The investigation shows that present applicant

contacted other co-accused Padmasing Bamnawat. Said Padmasing

had made available one Pradip Bainade who appeared on behalf

of the applicant at the time of examination. WhatsApp

communication between present applicant and said Padmasing

discloses that they were in touch with each other at the relevant

date and time. The mobile phone of the applicant came to be

seized. The photographs of the present applicant are obtained

from the different angles. The handwriting specimen of the

applicant also came to be obtained. The electronic evidence

collected during the investigation is forwarded to the analysis.

26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

The analysis report is yet to be received. CDR report shows

communication between present applicant and other co-accused.

Thus, at this stage, there is sufficient material to connect present

applicant with the alleged offence. In view of that, the application

deserves to be rejected.

8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire

investigation papers it reveals that during recruitment process for

the post of police constables the advertisement was published. In

response to the said advertisement, the aspirants candidates

applied for the posts. On 28.10.2021 preliminary written

examination was conducted. The physical test of the qualifying

candidates also conducted. While applying for the post the

candidates have supplied their photographs at the time of

submitting online application. During the examination video

recording was obtained and during video recording it revealed

that in place of present applicant another candidate by name

Pradip Bainade appeared for the examination. Said Pradip

Bainade was provided by the accused No.5 Padmasing Bamnawat.

During investigation the Investigating Officer collected various

documents showing specimen handwriting of the present 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

applicant as well as dummy candidate. The said specimen

handwriting was forwarded for the analysis. The analysis report is

received. The opinion given by the handwriting experts shows that

enclosed signature mark at Exh.Q-13 and Q-14 are not written by

the writer who has written the enclosed signatures marked at

Exh.S-7 to S-12 and N-5. The requisition forwarded to the

Analyser by the Investigating Officer shows that Q-13 and Q-14

are the signatures of the present applicant on the application

form. His presence recorded during the preliminary examination

and Exh.Q-15 to Q-22 are also the signatures of the present

applicant. The handwriting experts opinion shows that Q-13 and

Q-14 are not written by writer who has written enclosed

signatures marked as Exh.S-7 to S-12. S-7 to S-12 are the

specimen signatures of present applicant obtained during

investigation. Thus, though handwriting experts opinion shows

that in absence of sufficient identifying characters for comparison

it has not been possible to express any definite opinion as regards

identity or otherwise or but the signatures which are on the hall

ticket signature obtained at the time of examination on the

attendance sheet. The signature obtained on the answer sheet.

The signature obtained at the time of physical examination is not 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

matching with the specimen signature which is obtained during

the investigation of the present applicant.

9. Besides the handwriting opinion the video recording

which was collected by the Investigating Agency by drawing

panchanama dated 26.02.2022 and copied on the pen drive

which is already forwarded to the Analyser to compare from the

photographs whether the same person appeared for the

examination or not is yet to be received.

10. There is no dispute as to the legal position that expert

opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps

none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting

expert. However, at the initial stage, the handwriting experts

opinion specially states that specimen signatures are not matching

with the documents collected during the investigation as far as

present applicant is concerned. At this stage, there is prima-facie

material to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant though placed

reliance on the decision of Magan Bihari Lal vs. The State of 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

Punjab referred supra wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that

it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a

handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the

Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other

evidence, direct or circumstantial. Admittedly, this observation by

the Hon'ble Apex Court is on the basis of evidence which was

recorded in cited case.

12. At this stage, it would be to early to come to the

conclusion that the said handwriting experts opinion is not helpful

to the prosecution, specially in the light of that some reports are

yet to be received. Therefore, at this stage, the contention of

learned counsel for the applicant that mere handwriting experts

opinion would not be sufficient to connect the present applicant is

not sustainable specially in the light of the fact that videography

analysis report is yet to be received.

13. It is well settled that while considering the

application for quashing of the FIR the parameters which are laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana 26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)

Supreme Court Cases 335, where it is stated as under:-

" (a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.

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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) 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.

26 apl 910.23.odt..odt

14. If applied to the facts of the present case admittedly

from the allegations of the FIR and entire investigation material

sufficient to attract the offence against the present applicant and

discloses the prima-facie material. Therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-

(i) Criminal Application is rejected.

The criminal application stands disposed of

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

manisha

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/03/2026 10:34:27