[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Farah Khan 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-14084-2024
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. 14084 of 2024
DR FARAH KHAN
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri
Somyadeep Dwivedi, Advcoate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14050 of 2024
DR. PRADNYA DILIP KAPDEO
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri
Somyadeep Dwivedi, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34149 of 2021
DR. (MS) DILPREET KAUR KHANOOJA AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Kulshrestha, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47888 of 2021
DR. (MS) HARPREET ARORA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 16-01-2026
16:49:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
2 MCRC-14084-2024
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Kulshrestha, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49836 of 2021
DR. (MS) JYOTI SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Kulshrestha, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12292 of 2024
DR. DIKSHA CHACHARIA
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Chaudhary,
Advocate through Video Conferencing and Shri Sanjay Shukla,
Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14100 of 2024
DR. NEHIL NIGAM
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri
Somyadeep Dwivedi, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14159 of 2024
DR FARHAT KHAN
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 16-01-2026
16:49:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
3 MCRC-14084-2024
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri
Somyadeep Dwivedi, Advcoate for applicant.
Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
Reserved on : 7/1/2026
Pronounced on: 16/1/2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
By this common order M.Cr.C. Nos. 14050/2024, 34149/2021,
47888/2021, 49836/2021, 12292/2024, 14100/2024 and M.Cr.C. No.
14159/2024 shall also be decided.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C. No.14084/2024
shall be considered.
3. This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed for
quashment of criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.
01/2021 (Crime No. RC-2172015S0009) registered and pending in the
Court of IV ASJ/ Special Judge CBI (VYAPAM cases) for 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 order of cognizance dated
7/1/2021 passed by the trial Court.
4. The undisputed fact is that applicant is a candidate who is
facing prosecution for taking admission in MBBS course by hook and
crook in complete defiance of the procedure provided for admission of a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
4 MCRC-14084-2024
student in MBBS course, although she was not found eligible. It is the
case of the applicant that number of private and other technical
educational colleges have been established in addition to the colleges
owned by the State Government. The State Government has enacted MP
Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk
Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam 2007 (for short "the Act of 2007") . 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 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 an unreserved and 40% aggregate marks in case
of reserved category candidate. Reserved category candidates who opt
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
5 MCRC-14084-2024
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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
6 MCRC-14084-2024
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. According to Rule 12.1,
the schedule for admission process for the year 2011 was as 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
4 30.09.2011
vacancies arising due to any reason
5. It is the case of applicant that it is a matter of common
knowledge that the vacancy would arise only if some seats remain vacant
on account of non-selection or non-reporting of assigned student on the
prescribed date or leaving the course/cancelling admission by reported
students before the last date of admission. It is submitted that so far as
the present applicant is concerned, she has nothing to do with the
previous procedures and she entered into the picture only when the seat
remained unfilled and it was notified by the College on the notice board
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
7 MCRC-14084-2024
that candidates having minimum qualification can apply for allotment of
their seat and, accordingly, the applicant took admission in the Chirayu
Medical College. It is further submitted that one of the co-accused
named Dr. Ajay Goenka has already been discharged by this Court by
quashing the FIR against him and relied upon the judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ajay Goenka Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation decided on 21/2/2024 passed in MCRC No.
39055/2021.
6. 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,
Gwalior through Parmanand Wadhwa, clerk in the Students Section of
the college 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
8 MCRC-14084-2024
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. In compliance of the said order, FIR
No. 271/2014 of PS Jhansi Road, Gwalior was re-registered by CBI as
RC2172015S0009 on 15/7/2015. During the investigation, it was
revealed that Chirayu Medical College, vide letter dated 9/7/2012,
forwarded a list of 150 candidates for academic session 2011-12 to the
DME and thereafter the same was verified by Dr. N.M. Srivastava, the
then Joint-DME and forwarded to Registrar, Barkatullah University for
further action. Scrutiny of the list attached with above said letter revealed
that Chirayu Medical College had admitted 47 candidates against State
quota on the last date of admission i.e. 30/9/2011. It was found that out
of the said 47 seats, Chirayu Medical College admitted 39 ineligible
candidates on the last date of admission i.e. 30/9/2011. These 39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
9 MCRC-14084-2024
candidates had either not appeared in MPPMT-11 counseling or were
not allotted any college by the counseling committee. It was also found
that remaining eight candidates namely Rohan Gupta, Utsav Sharma,
Aditi Baghel, Nancy Azad, Astha Singh, Shivali Chauhan, Krati
Fatehpuria and Akansha Yadav were already admitted in Chirayu
Medical College against DMAT seats but they were shown admitted on
MPPMT seat on 30/9/2011. The investigation further revealed that out of
39 candidates who took admission in Chirayu Medical College on vacant
State quota seats on 30/9/2011, fee in respect of 29 candidates was
accepted by the College through cheques bearing date 3/10/2011,
whereas the candidates were issued fee receipt by the College dated
30/9/2011. As per CFSL expert opinion, the handwritings present on 8
cheques of candidates belonged to Girish Kantikar, PRO, Chirayu
Medical College. It prima facie proved that blank cheques were given by
the parents of the candidates to Chirayu Medical College staff. The
applicant had appeared in MPPMT- 2011 exam but due to less marks
(113/200) in MPPMT exam, she was not allotted any college through
MPPMT counseling. Investigation also revealed that in conspiracy with
the Chirayu Medical College, she got prepared and submitted all the
desired affidavits/bonds/agreements etc. in the college already in the
month of August 2011. Investigation also revealed that the fee of
Rs.3,85,000/- was paid by her by Cheque No.813951 dated 26/8/2011,
whereas the fee receipt No. 531 against the said payment was issued by
the College on 25/8/2011. Thus, illegal admission of applicant was
already done by Chirayu Medical College in August 2011. However, she
was not allotted Chirayu Medical College through the MPPMT
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
10 MCRC-14084-2024
counseling, but she was shown admitted in the College on 30/9/11
fraudulently against PMT/State quota seat as per the list forwarded by
the college to DME and MCI. The applicant is among the 39 ineligible
candidates, who in conspiracy with Chirayu Medical College Bhopal,
took admission in the college on the last date of admission i.e.
30/9/2011, even when the applicant was not allotted any seat in Chirayu
Medical College,Bhopal by counseling committee of MPPMT-2011.
Accordingly a supplementary charge sheet has been filed by CBI before
the Court of Additional Sessions and Special judge for CBI, VYAPAM
cases Gwalior on 7/1/2020 for offences under sections 120B read with
sections 201, 204, 408, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and under
section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and section 4/3-D(1)(2) of MPRE Act, 1937 and accordingly, the
trial Court has rightly taken cognizance by order dated 7/1/2021.
7. It is the case of applicant that since the seat was left vacant and,
therefore, a notice was affixed by the Chirayu Medical College on the
notice-board notifying that certain seats are lying vacant and eligible
candidates can apply for their admission in the medical college and
accordingly she took admission. Merely because the admission was
taken on the last day, it will not make the admission illegal and thus the
prosecution is bad.
8. In reply, it was once again submitted by counsel for CBI that
the investigation has revealed that the admission of the applicants on the
last date of admission schedule was not bonafide and the fee was already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
11 MCRC-14084-2024
deposited much prior to their admission. Even otherwise, they could not
clear MP PMT examination because of poor marks received by them and
they were not eligible for admission.
9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
10. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for the
parties, this Court would like to consider the quashment of prosecution
of the FIR against Dr. Ajay Goenka. This Court has gone through the
order dated 21/2/2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case
o f Dr. Ajay Goenka (Supra) . In that case, it has not been held that no
offence on merits was committed at all, but 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
order to commit an offence of criminal 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 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 Dr. Ajay
Goenka 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
12 MCRC-14084-2024
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.
11. However, the reasons assigned by Division Bench of this
Court for quashing the prosecution against Dr. Ajay Goenka are not
applicable to the present case. In the present case, the allegations are that
by making some candidates appear in the PMT examination who were
either already prosecuting their studies or who were given admission in
BDS, the seats were declared vacant. The candidates who could not clear
MPPMT examination because of less marks, the candidates who were
not allotted any college through MPPMT counseling because of less
mark had already deposited their fee well in advance but they were
shown to have been given admission on 30/9/2011 by claiming that
since the seats had remained vacant, therefore, they were granted
admission. It is the case of the CBI that Chirayu Medical College had
deliberately ensured that the seats should remain vacant so that they can
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
13 MCRC-14084-2024
give admission to the candidates who were not even able to get allotment
of any college in counseling because of less marks in MPPMT.
Conspiracies are not hatched in open, but it has to be ascertained from
the conduct of the parties. If the admission of applicant was such an
honest admission, then why she had already deposited the fee much prior
to the declaration of the seat as a vacant seat ? Therefore, there appears to
be some understanding between the College Management and the
candidates. Since the college had already accepted fee from the applicant
in the month of August 2011 itself, it is clear that principally the college
had already given admission to the applicant in spite of the fact that
applicant was not allotted Chirayu Medical College through MPPMT
counseling. Even otherwise, after accepting the fee in the month of
August-2011, it was shown by the college management that the applicant
was granted admission on 30/9/2011. In order to frame charges, grave
suspicion that a person might have committed an offence is sufficient. A
roving inquiry at the stage of framing of charges or taking of cognizance
is not required.
12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of considered opinion that since there is a prima facie
material against the applicant warranting taking of cognizance by the
trial Court, no case is made out warranting interference.
13. Accordingly, the application (M.Cr.C. No.14084/2024) fails
and is hereby dismissed.
14. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that dismissal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1971
14 MCRC-14084-2024
of this application shall not prejudice or influence the mind of the trial
Court because in view of limited scope of interference, this Court cannot
look into other material except the material relied upon by the police.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, M.Cr.C. Nos. 14050/2024,
34149/2021, 47888/2021, 49836/2021, 12292/2024, 14100/2024 and
M.Cr.C. No. 14159/2024 also stand dismissed as the facts and
circumstances of these cases are identical to M.Cr.C. No.14084/2024.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
