[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ravi Saxena vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
1 MCRC-52432-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52432 of 2024
DR. RAVI SAXENA
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri V.D.Sharma, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
Reserved on : 7/1/2026
Pronounced on : 16/1/2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, has been
filed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.271/2014 registered at P.S.
Jhansi Road, Gwalior which was later on transferred to CBI and registered as
Case No. RC2172015S0009 for the offence under sections 120B read with
sections 201, 204, 408, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and under section
13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
and under section 4/3-D(1)(2) of MPRE Act 1937, as well as, for quashment
of all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime
number and investigation undertaken by CBI including the proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
2 MCRC-52432-2024
initiated in SC CBI No.01/2021 pending before learned Special Judge,
CBI/Vyapam, Gwalior.
2. The undisputed fact is that applicant was the member of a
Committee formed by an order dated 4/8/2011 along with Dr. Ashok Jain
and Dr. Brijendra Mishra to oversee and execute all admission related tasks
of Chirayu Medical College and Hospital. According to the prosecution, this
Committee had the responsibility of scrutinizing and verifying all requisition
forms prior to granting admission to any candidate for the MBBS course for
the academic year 2011 and the Chairman of the committee Dr. Jitendra
Kain, in conjunction with the committee members i.e. the applicant as well
as Dr. Ashok Jain and Dr. Brijendra Mishra, failed to conduct a proper and
thorough scrutiny of the candidates' documents or documents, thereby
neglecting to discharge their mandatory responsibility. It is the case of the
prosecution that the accused applicant in conspiracy with Chirayu Medical
College management gave admissions to 39 ineligible candidates in the
college on the last date of admission, though the candidates were not allotted
any seats by the counseling committee of MPPMT 2011.
3. The MP Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman
Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 ( for short "the Act of 2007" )
was enacted with specific object of regulation of admission and fixation of
fee in private professional education institutions of the State and to provide
reservation to candidates of SC, ST and OBC category also. The Department
of Medical Education, Government of MP issued MP Government
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
3 MCRC-52432-2024
Autonomous/Government Medical and Dental Under-graduate Examination
Rules, 2011 ( for short "the Rules of 2011") , vide notification dated
24/5/2011 and the provisions of eligibility, seats available, reservation,
process of admission etc. were prescribed/notified for information and
compliance of the candidates. Under Rules of 2011, the eligibility was
prescribed in Rule 6, according to which the candidate must be a bonafide
resident of Madhya Pradesh. He/she must have been born in Madhya
Pradesh and studied for three years continuously in any educational
institution of Madhya Pradesh. For admission to MBBS/BDS course, only
those candidates were eligible who have passed the qualifying examination
of higher secondary from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal passing Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects individually and
have secured at least 50% aggregate marks in case of unreserved and 40%
aggregate marks in case of reserved category candidate. Reserved category
candidates who opt for unreserved seat should secure 50% marks in Higher
Secondary school and so on.
Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 prescribes for conducting entrance
examination and as per that, only one common entrance test for Government
Autonomous and Private Colleges is provided. Rule 8.4 prescribes
publication of merit list of all successful candidates by Board/VYAPAM on
the basis of marks secured by candidates in the PMT examination. For
unreserved category, 50% cut-off marks were prescribed and it was also
provided that 50% marks in qualifying examination (10+2) and PMT are
necessary. For reserved category candiates, if they opt for seat of unreserved
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
4 MCRC-52432-2024
category, 50% cut off marks would be required. Rule 8.4.2 prescribes that
separate merit list will be prepared for reserved category candidates.
Rule 9 of the Rules of 2011 prescribes for counseling and as and as
per that, the allotment of seats was to be made through counseling on the
basis of personal appearance of candidates. Rule 9 prescribes for constitution
of counseling committee. Rule 9 also prescribes that candidates may
participate in the counseling through authorized representative. Rule 9 also
provides for different contingencies related to counseling and selection of
seat by the candidate. Rule 9.9 prescribes for reallocation of seat and Rule
9.11 specifically prescribes that counseling shall be done on merit cum
option basis according to category enumerated in sub-rule and sequence.
Rule 9.15 of Rules of 2011 prescribes that a candidate admitted to UG
course in Government autonomous/Government medical/dental college in
Madhya Pradesh through All India Entrance Test 2011 and also got selected
in MP PMT 2011 will be eligible to participate in counseling scheduled for
selection of candidates of MP PMT. However, candidate will have to resign
from all India seat in case of allotment of seat in counseling from MP PMT.
Rule 10 & 11 of Rules of 2011 prescribe for formalities required to be
done for taking admission.
Rule 12 of Rules of 2011 provided for date of commencement of
academic session and the last date of admission was prescribed. According
to Rule 12.1, the schedule for admission process for the year 2011 was as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
5 MCRC-52432-2024
under:-
By July,
1. First Counselling
By
2. Commencement Academic Session
01.08.2011
By August
3 Second Counselling
Last date upto which students can be admitted against vacancies
4 30.09.2011
arising due to any reason
4. It is the case of applicant that he was merely a member of
committee and no malafides can be attributed to a body of persons. Even if
any lapses have occurred while taking decision in the matter, it would not
include mens rea and thus it is prayed that the prosecution of the applicant is
unwarranted
5 . Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the CBI that initially on
7/7/2014, FIR No. 271/2014 was registered at Police Station Jhansi Road,
Gwalior against three accused persons namely one candidate Jay Prakash
Baghel and two middlemen namely Sarvendra Jadon and Parmanand
Wadhwa for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
The said case was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by one
Ashish Chaturvedi wherein it was alleged that Jay Prakash Baghel, who was
a student of MBBS course of MPPMT-2010 in Gajra Raja Medical College,
Gwalior, at the instance of his friend Sarvendra Jadon, appeared again in
MPPMT-2011 with intention to cancel the seat fraudulently obtained in lieu
of monetary consideration. It was further alleged that for participating in the
counseling, Jay Prakash Baghel got his original documents from GRMC,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
6 MCRC-52432-2024
Gwalior through Parmanand Wadhwa, clerk in the Students Section of the
college by by paying him an amount of Rs.35,000/-. During the counseling
of MP PMT-2011, Jay Prakash Baghel got a seat allotted in Chirayu Medical
College, Bhopal and in connivance with the private college authorities, he
vacated the seat for which he was paid Rs.1,25,000/- through his friend
Sarvendra Jadon, who also got a similar amount. During police investigation,
it was further revealed that apart from Jay Prakash Baghel, other 47 students,
who were also allotted MBBS seat in Chirayu Medical College through
MPPMT-2011, also had vacated their respective seats. Therefore, local
police also included the said matter of vacation of seats by other 47
candidates in the investigation. After investigation, the local police filed a
charge sheet against Jay Prakash Baghel, Sarvendra Jadon and Parmanand
Wadhwa on 2/10/2014 before the competent Court under sections 420, 467,
468, 471 read with section 120B of IPC and the investigation was kept open
under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against remaining accused persons.
Thereafter, Supreme Court, vide order dated 9/7/2015, passed in WP (Civil)
No. 372/2015 transferred the investigation of criminal cases related to
VYAPAM scam to CBI. The CBI investigation has revealed that 47
candidates who were allotted Chirayu Medical College, Bhopal by
counselling committee of MPPMT-2011 vacated the seats and did not take
admission in the said College. Out of these 47 candidates, few candidates
were already MBBS students in renowned medical colleges, however, they
again appeared in MPPMT-2011 with malafide intention, got allotted MBBS
seat in Chirayu Medical College and thereafter vacated the seat in order to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
7 MCRC-52432-2024
give opportunity to Chirayu Medical College to fill the vacant seats by its
own. Investigation further revealed that Chirayu Medical College
dishonestly gave false information repeatedly to the Director of Medical
Education about the vacancy position so that further allotment of seats to
other deserving candidates in further rounds of counselling could not be
made and thus Chirayu Medical College dishonestly kept the vacancy in the
college till last date of admission i.e. 30.9.2011 and admitted 39 ineligible
candidates of their own choice, on last date of admission i.e. 30.9.2011.
These 39 candidates had even not appeared in MPPMT-2011 counselling or
were not allotted any college by the counselling committee constituted by
DME. Hence, these 39 candidates were ineligible to get admission in MBBS
in Chirayu Medical College through State Quota seats, which in reality
belonged to meritorious candidates of MPPMT-2011.
Further, investigation has revealed that applicant along with Dr. Ashok
Jain and Dr. Brijendra Mishra, was a member of a committee formed vide an
order dated 04.08.2011 (modified on 06.08.2011) of Dr. Virender Mohan,
Dean, chaired by Dr. Jitendra Kain, constituted to oversee and execute all
admission-related tasks of Chirayu Medical College & Hospital. This
committee bore the responsibility of scrutinizing and verifying all requisite
records prior to granting admission to any candidate for the MBBS program
for the academic year 2011. However, it has come on record that the
Chairman Dr. Jitendra Kain, in conjunction with the committee members i.e.
Dr. Ravi Saxena, Dr. Ashok Jain and Dr. Brijendra Mishra failed to conduct
a proper and thorough scrutiny of the candidates' documents, thereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
8 MCRC-52432-2024
neglecting to discharge their mandated responsibilities. The applicant in
conspiracy with Chirayu Medical College Management gave admission to
the 39 ineligible candidates in the college on last date of admission i.e.
30.09.2011 even though the candidates were not allotted any seats by the
counselling committee of MPPMT-2011 and hence they were ineligible for
admission. After investigation, supplementary chargesheet was filed by CBI
before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for CBI,
Vyapam Cases, Gwalior on 07.01.2020 against total 60 accused persons
including accused applicant Dr. Ravi Saxena u/S 120-B r/w 201, 204, 408,
419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act,
1988 and Section 4/3-D(1)(2) of MPRE Act, 1937.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
7. The applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Dr. Ajay Goenka Vs. CBI decided on 10/2/2025
in M.Cr.C. No.53249/2024 , as well as, judgment passed by another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ajay Goenka Vs. CBI decided on
21/2/2024 in MCRC No. 39055/2021. The judgment passed in MCRC No.
53249/2024 is based on the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench in
M.Cr.C.No. 39055/2021. In the case of Ajay Goenka (Supra) /M.Cr.C.
No.39055/2021,it has not been held that no offence on merits was committed
at all, and quashment of proceedings against Dr. Goenka was on the ground
that there is nothing on record to suggest that how he was involved in the
entire scam. It was held that in in order to commit an offence of criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
9 MCRC-52432-2024
conspiracy, there should be an agreement between two or more persons and
the agreement which is formed must be in relation to committing an illegal
act or an act done by illegal means. The CBI could not point out any material
from record as so as to infer any agreement between the petitioner Dr. Ajay
Goenka and the students or College Management Committee or Admission
Committee; statutory committees to hire students for blocking seats in order
to cause pecuniary gain to the College/Society. What
evidence/documents/electronic record have been destroyed by the petitioner
or which documents/electronic record have been forged by him or which
forged documents have been used by him or which document has been
cancelled/destroyed/defaced by him so as to attract the provisions of sections
201, 204, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC has not come forward. What property was
entrusted to Dr. Ajay Goenka and how he committed criminal breach of trust
so as to attract the provisions of section 408 and 409 of IPC has also not
been explained by the CBI. Similarly, it was also held that no explanation has
been rendered with respect to the imputed provisions of PC Act and Pariksha
Adhiniyam against Dr. Ajay Goenka. It was held that for taking cognizance,
there should be a grave suspicion against the accused leading to presumption.
Criminal liability being strict liability, the material for harboring such grave
suspicion should be discernible from record which according to the Division
Bench was lacking in the case against Ajay Goenka and, thus, the
cognizance taken by the trial Court against Dr. Ajay Goenka was quashed.
8. In the present case, the allegations are that applicant was
responsible for overseeing the selection process. and to execute all admission
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
10 MCRC-52432-2024
related tasks of Chirayu Medical College and hospital, and in connivance
with the other members of the selection committee, failed to conduct a
proper and thorough scrutiny of the candidates. Thus, the case in hand is not
covered by the law laid down by Division Benches of this Court in the case
o f Ajay Goenka (Supra) /M.Cr.C.No. 39055/2021 and Ajay Goenka
(Supra)/MCRC No. 53249/2024. Whether the act of applicant was on
account of any conspiracy or it is on account of negligence in discharge of
their mandatory responsibilities is a highly disputed question of fact and this
Court in exercise of powers under section 482 of CRPC cannot adjudicate
this said aspect. In connected applications which were filed by the
candidates, this Court has already held that the candidates were not allotted
any medical seats because of their poor performance in the MPPMT, in spite
of that, before the seats could have been declared vacant, they had already
deposited their fees and the college management gave admission on
30/9/2011 i.e. on the last date for giving admission in MBBS course. Certain
candidates who were already prosecuting their MBBS course appeared in the
MPPMT examination of 2011 and then after getting successful, they left the
seat or certain candidates who were already admitted in BDS course were
shown to have left their seat. As a result, the seats got vacant and the
Chirayu Medical College management had already accepted the fee from
certain students and thereafter for giving them admission on 30/9/2011, it
was projected that since the seats had been left vacant therefore, the
candidates who had scored at least 50% of marks in higher secondary school
or or in the PMT. were given admission on their applications. Under what
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
11 MCRC-52432-2024
circumstances these seats were left by the candidates who were otherwise
prosecuting their other courses? Under what circumstances Chirayu Medical
College management accepted the fee from the candidates in the month of
August 2011 itself, but by that time even the seats were not declared vacant
and under what circumstances it was shown abruptly that they have been
given admission on 30/9/2011 are certain questions which cannot be
adjudicated at this stage. Therefore, it clearly shows that the applicant is
liable to be prosecuted. Even otherwise a roving inquiry is not to be
conducted and the defence of the accused persons is not to be considered at
the time of taking cognizance or framing of charges. The accused persons
can take their defence at an appropriate stage under section 91 of CRPC.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of considered
opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. The application
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
