[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shelendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
1 MCRC-41150-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41150 of 2024
SHELENDRA SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has
been preferred by petitioner, namely, Shailendra Singh Tomar, under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking quashment of
the F.I.R. dated 07.02.2023 bearing Crime No.15 of 2023 registered by
Crime Branch, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 120-B & 201 IPC of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
3, 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1982, and
Sections 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 as well as all further
proceedings therefrom alongwith charge-sheet.
As per prosecution story, on 07.02.2023, Constable Satendra Kushwah
was directed by the Station House Officer to take into custody a Dehati
Nalishi (preliminary complaint) registered as Crime No. 0/2023 under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
2 MCRC-41150-2024
Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Madhya
Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act and Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, for formal registration at the Crime Branch, District
Gwalior. Accordingly, the said Dehati Nalishi was registered at Police
Station Crime Branch, District Gwalior, as Crime No. 15/2023 on
07.02.2023.
The complainant, Inspector Amar Singh Sikarwar, Station House
Officer, Crime Branch, Gwalior, stated that on 07.02.2023 at around 08:00
AM, he received information from an informant that near Shri Krishna
Dhaba, located on Gwalior Dabra Road, Tekanpur, certain individuals were
solving and supplying question papers of the ANM (Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife) recruitment examination to candidates in exchange for money.
Upon receiving the information, he informed senior officers and proceeded
to the spot along with police force and investigation kit. After obtaining due
permission from the dhaba owner, the police team entered the premises and
inspected the rooms constructed above the dhaba. In Room No.101, several
persons along with male and female candidates were found present. Upon
inquiry, they disclosed their names and addresses. The candidates informed
the police that the accused persons had negotiated monetary consideration
with them and were providing answers to the question paper of the ANM
nursing examination scheduled to be held at 03:00 PM on the same day.
During inquiry, it was found that coaccused Dhananjay Pandey was solving
the questions and explaining them to the candidates. Coaccused Deepu
Pandey had gathered the candidates at Shri Krishna Dhaba. Other coaccused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
3 MCRC-41150-2024
persons, namely, Saurabh Tiwari, Rajneesh alias Ravi Jat, Joginder Jat,
Rishikant Tyagi, Manish Kumar, and Vipin Sharma, had collected
documents from the candidates and were assisting Dhananjay Pandey in the
said illegal activity. Since prima facie offences under Sections 420, 120-B
IPC, Sections 3/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, and Section 66
of the IT Act were made out, the police, following due procedure, seized
from the accused one laptop, mobile phones, photocopies of the question
paper of the ANM nursing examination (containing 100 questions with
marked answers), other documents, one photocopy machine, and a Hyundai
Aura car bearing registration No. MP07CL8877 used for transportation. The
accused persons were arrested on the spot, arrest memos were prepared, and
investigation was initiated. The Dehati Nalishi was typed and printed at the
spot using the dhaba's computer and printer and sent to the police station for
formal registration of the FIR. During investigation, based on collected
evidence, several accused persons were found involved in the offence. A
charge-sheet dated 05.04.2023 (Challan No.05/2023) was filed before the
Court of JMFC, Gwalior, in Case No. 1594/2023. During further
investigation, statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act revealed that
coaccused Manish Kumar Pandey had been sent to Gwalior to facilitate the
leakage of the NHM nursing recruitment examination paper and to assemble
candidates. Documentary evidence from Hotel Saya indicated that he stayed
there on the date of the incident along with co-accused. Shailendra Singh
Tomar (present petitioner), was arrested on 04.04.2023. During
interrogation, his memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
4 MCRC-41150-2024
recorded, wherein he disclosed his involvement in the offence. Based on his
disclosure, a laptop used in the crime, allegedly provided by co-accused
Chirag Agrawal, was seized. The seized electronic devices were sent to the
Cyber Forensic Laboratory for examination. Coaccused Manish Kumar
Pandey remained absconding since the date of the incident. Despite best
efforts, he could not be apprehended, and proceedings under Section 73
CrPC were initiated. A proclamation and related proceedings were carried
out, but his arrest could not be secured. On the basis of the entire
investigation and evidence collected, offences under Sections 420, 120-B,
and 201 IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examinations
Act and Section 66 of the IT Act, were found to be duly established against
Shailendra Singh Tomar (present petitioner) and coaccused Manish Kumar
Pandey.
Accordingly, after completion of investigation against accused
Shailendra Singh Tomar (present petitioner), a supplementary charge-sheet
dated 22.05.2023 was filed, and in respect of absconding coaccused Manish
Kumar Pandey, proceedings under Section 299 CrPC were initiated. The
same was submitted before the competent court with a request to be read
along with the main charge-sheet dated 05.04.2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shailendra Singh Tomar, submits
that the present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court for quashment of the impugned FIR dated 07.02.2023 as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
5 MCRC-41150-2024
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheets,
on the ground that the same are wholly unsustainable in law and amount to a
clear abuse of the process of the Court.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the present case and his name does not find place in the FIR. The entire
prosecution story, as reflected in the FIR, pertains to certain accused persons
who were allegedly apprehended at the spot and were directly involved in
solving and supplying the question paper to candidates. The petitioner was
neither present at the place of occurrence nor was he apprehended from the
spot, and there is absolutely no direct evidence connecting him with the
alleged incident.
It is further submitted that the implication of the petitioner has been
made subsequently during the course of investigation, primarily on the basis
of memorandum statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
and the alleged disclosure statements of co-accused persons. It is a settled
position of law that such statements are admissible only to the limited extent
of discovery of a fact and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. In the
present case, no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from
the petitioner which can be said to have been discovered pursuant to such
memorandum. The alleged seizure of a laptop is not supported by any
independent evidence and does not establish any connection of the petitioner
with the alleged offence. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravishankar Tandon v. State of
Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 INSC 299, wherein it has been categorically
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
6 MCRC-41150-2024
held that the disclosure statement of an accused is admissible only to the
extent it leads to discovery, and any confessional part of such statement is
inadmissible. It has further been held that such statements cannot be the sole
basis to proceed against an accused in absence of independent corroborative
evidence.
It is further submitted that the only additional circumstance relied
upon by the prosecution is the transfer of money from the bank account of
co-accused Tarunesh Kumar Arjariya to the bank account of the petitioner.
The said transaction has been duly explained by the petitioner during the
course of investigation; however, the Investigating Agency has failed to
consider the same in its proper perspective and has mechanically proceeded
to file the charge-sheet.
It is further submitted that the petitioner, after the demise of his
parents, received a residential property situated at B-1/2, New Vivek Nagar,
Dullpur, behind Mela Ground, Gwalior, in a family partition and in the year
2021, the said property was let out on rent to co-accused Tarunesh Kumar
Arjariya through a duly executed and notarized rent agreement dated
11.04.2021, for which stamp paper had been purchased on 01.01.2021. The
monetary transfers reflected in the petitioner's bank account are nothing but
rent payments made in the ordinary course of such tenancy arrangement. The
prosecution has neither disputed the existence of the rent agreement nor
brought any material on record to show that the said transactions were
connected with any alleged illegal activity.
It is further submitted that merely because the said tenant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
7 MCRC-41150-2024
subsequently been implicated in a criminal case, the petitioner cannot be
roped in solely on the basis of such financial transactions, which are
otherwise lawful and duly explained. The implication of the petitioner is thus
based on mere suspicion and conjectures, without any substantive evidence.
It is further submitted that there is no material on record to establish
the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner and
there is no evidence of any agreement or meeting of minds so as to attract
the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. There is no
allegation of any dishonest inducement or delivery of property attributable to
the petitioner so as to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. Similarly,
there is no material to show that the petitioner caused disappearance of any
evidence with the intention of screening the offender, as required under
Section 201 IPC. The provisions of the Information Technology Act have
also been invoked without any supporting technical or electronic evidence
connecting the petitioner with the alleged act.
It is further submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, in absence of any prima facie material, would result in
grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. The petitioner is a government
servant undergoing training, and the pendency of such criminal proceedings
has serious adverse consequences on his career and reputation.
It is further submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that
where the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or are instituted with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
8 MCRC-41150-2024
ulterior motive, the High Court is empowered to quash such proceedings in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction so as to prevent abuse of the process of
law and to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, even if the entire
prosecution case is taken at its face value, the same does not disclose any
prima facie offence against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is
based on inadmissible memorandum statements and explained financial
transactions, without any independent corroboration. The continuation of
proceedings, therefore, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is,
therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR
dated 07.02.2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
including the charge-sheets, against the present petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the petition
and prayed for its rejection submitting that the present case discloses a well-
organized racket involving leakage of a recruitment examination paper and
cheating of candidates, which has serious ramifications on the integrity of
public examinations. It is further contended that during the course of
investigation, sufficient material has been collected to prima facie establish
the involvement of the present petitioner in the larger conspiracy. The role of
the petitioner is not isolated but forms part of a chain of events connecting
various accused persons who were acting in concert to facilitate the illegal
activity.
It is further submitted that the implication of the petitioner is not based
solely on memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but
is duly supported by surrounding circumstances, including his close
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
9 MCRC-41150-2024
association with co-accused persons and the financial transactions between
him and co-accused Tarunesh Kumar Arjariya. The said transactions,
according to the prosecution, are not satisfactorily explained at this stage and
require appreciation of evidence during trial. Such aspects cannot be
conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or its
corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
It is further submitted that the investigation has been conducted in
accordance with law, and a charge-sheet has been filed after due
consideration of the evidence collected, including electronic material which
has been sent for forensic examination. The petitioner's memorandum and
disclosures have led to recovery of relevant articles, and his role has emerged
during investigation through statements of co-accused and other material
collected by the Investigating Agency. It is thus submitted that at this stage,
when a prima facie case is made out, this Court ought not to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The truthfulness,
admissibility, and evidentiary value of the material collected are matters to
be examined during trial. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits
deserves to be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner does not find
mention in the FIR, nor was he apprehended from the spot where the alleged
illegal activity was detected. The implication of the petitioner has surfaced
only during the course of investigation, primarily on the basis of
memorandum statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
10 MCRC-41150-2024
the statements of co-accused persons, which by their very nature are not
substantive pieces of evidence.
It is trite law that the evidentiary value of a memorandum statement is
strictly confined to the extent it leads to discovery of a fact, and any
confessional or inculpatory portion thereof is inadmissible. In the present
case, this Court finds that no such discovery, which can be said to be directly
attributable to the petitioner and which establishes his involvement in the
alleged offence, has been brought on record. The alleged seizure of
electronic devices is not shown to have been made pursuant to any specific
and exclusive disclosure by the petitioner, nor has the prosecution been able
to demonstrate any forensic linkage between the petitioner and the alleged
leakage of the examination paper. In this context, the reliance placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravishankar Tandon v. State of
Chhattisgarh (supra), is apposite, wherein the limited admissibility of such
statements has been clearly delineated.
This Court further finds that the only other circumstance relied upon
by the prosecution is the transfer of certain amounts from the bank account
of co-accused Tarunesh Kumar Arjariya to that of the present petitioner. The
petitioner has offered a cogent and plausible explanation, supported by a
duly executed and notarized rent agreement, to the effect that the said
transactions pertain to rent of a residential property owned by him and let out
to the said co-accused. The prosecution has neither conducted any
meaningful inquiry to discredit the said explanation nor brought any material
on record to establish that the said financial transactions were proceeds of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
11 MCRC-41150-2024
crime or were in any manner connected with the alleged offence. In absence
of such material, the said circumstance cannot be treated as incriminating
against the petitioner.
A careful evaluation of the material on record further reveals that no
independent witness has attributed any specific role to the petitioner and
none of the candidates allegedly present at the spot have named or identified
the petitioner, nor is there any evidence to show that he was involved in
arranging candidates, collecting money, or facilitating the alleged leakage of
the question paper. The essential ingredients of the offences alleged,
including criminal conspiracy, cheating, and causing disappearance of
evidence, are thus conspicuously absent in relation to the petitioner. Mere
acquaintance with co-accused persons or incidental financial transactions, in
absence of any substantive evidence, cannot give rise to criminal liability.
This Court is of the settled legal position that the inherent powers are
to be exercised sparingly; however, where the uncontroverted allegations and
the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of
any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with lack of
evidence and amount to abuse of the process of law, it would be justified in
exercising such jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. The present
case, in the considered view of this Court, squarely falls within such
category.
In light of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the
continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be
wholly unjustified and would result in undue harassment without there being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9544
12 MCRC-41150-2024
any legally admissible evidence to support the allegations. The prosecution,
even if taken at its highest, fails to establish a prima facie case against the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The impugned FIR dated 07.02.2023 registered at Crime Branch, District
Gwalior for the offences as mentioned in para 1, and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheets and
supplementary charge-sheets, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner,
are hereby quashed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
