Mayank Mishra vs Centaral Bureau Of Investigation ... on 23 March, 2026

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731




                                                                1                          MCRC-4768-2026
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                             &
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
                                                    ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4768 of 2026
                                                    MAYANK MISHRA
                                                         Versus
                                        CENTARAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BHOPAL
                           Appearance:
                                     Shri Deepesh Joshi - Advocate for petitioner.
                                     Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for respondent/State.

                                                                    ORDER

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. RC2172015A0021 dated 27.07.2015, the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2018, and all consequential proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court.

2. The case arises out of alleged irregularities in the Combined Recruitment Test, 2013 conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination

Board (Vyapam). The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis that he is the son of Shri Chandrakant Mishra, who was working as an Assistant Programmer in Vyapam and is himself an accused in the matter. The only allegation against the petitioner pertains to alleged irregularities in his OMR answer sheet.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was not even eligible for the post of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731

2 MCRC-4768-2026 Assistant Programmer for which the examination was conducted, as he lacked the requisite qualifications, including mandatory experience and diploma requirements. Having completed his engineering degree only in 2012, he did not possess the required one-year experience in computer programming nor the prescribed diploma qualification.

4. The petitioner appeared in the examination merely for self-assessment and to understand the pattern and difficulty level of such competitive examinations. He secured only 86 marks, which were insufficient for selection, and even otherwise, his lack of eligibility made selection impossible. Further, the petitioner's father had no role or authority in the conduct of the said examination, nor any access to the OMR sheets. The

examination was under the charge of another Officer, and there is no allegation of any conspiracy involving the petitioner with any concerned officer.

5. The implication of the petitioner is thus based purely on conjectures and his relationship with a co-accused, without any substantive or prima facie evidence. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the Applicant is therefore an abuse of the process of law.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a bare reading of the FIR, charge-sheet, and material placed on record does not disclose any prima facie case against the Petitioner. The allegations are vague, omnibus, and founded purely on presumptions arising out of the Petitioner's relationship with a co-accused, namely his father, who was an employee in Vyapam. There is no direct evidence, document, or witness statement indicating the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731

3 MCRC-4768-2026 Petitioner's involvement in any alleged manipulation of OMR sheets or any conspiracy. It is further submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings on such speculative and unsubstantiated allegations amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law.

7. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 477-A and 120-B of the IPC, as well as provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act, and M.P. Recognized Examination Act, are not made out against the Petitioner even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value. The Petitioner neither derived any wrongful gain nor caused any wrongful loss, nor is there any allegation of forgery, use of forged documents, destruction of evidence, or tampering with electronic records attributable to him. The Petitioner is not a public servant, nor was he acting in any official capacity, thereby rendering the invocation of provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 477-A IPC wholly untenable.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner was admittedly not eligible for the post in question due to lack of requisite qualifications and experience, and therefore, there existed no motive or possibility for him to benefit from any alleged manipulation. Even otherwise, the Petitioner did not secure marks sufficient for selection. In such circumstances, the prosecution story becomes inherently improbable and absurd, as no prudent person would engage in illegal acts without any possibility of gain. The allegation of conspiracy is also baseless in the absence of any material indicating meeting

of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731

4 MCRC-4768-2026

9. It is thus submitted that the implication of the Petitioner is arbitrary, mala fide, and solely based on conjectures, rendering the entire criminal proceeding liable to be quashed. Continuation of the same would result in grave miscarriage of justice and unnecessary harassment to the Petitioner. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings in order to secure ends of justice.

10. The State has opposed the petition, contending that the Petitioner's father was an Assistant Analyst in Vyapam and, therefore, the Petitioner was in a position to be part of a conspiracy. It is further alleged that the Petitioner knowingly left the OMR sheet blank so that answers could be filled in later. It has also been argued that the Petitioner may have appeared in the examination as a pre-trial for preparation for the next year's examination, as he was not eligible for selection in the examination in question. Alternatively, it is alleged that the examination may have been managed to secure his appointment, considering that his father was posted in Vyapam. Therefore, according to the State, strong evidence exists on record, and hence the FIR is not liable to be quashed.

11. As per the investigation, the original scanned data reflected very low scores of certain accused candidates, and in some cases, the OMR answer sheets were found to be blank. It is alleged that thereafter, the OMR answer sheets were taken out from sealed boxes, answers were subsequently shaded, and the sheets were illegally re-scanned. The manipulated data files were then used to alter the results, resulting in higher scores for the concerned

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731

5 MCRC-4768-2026 candidates.

12. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the investigation notes that he is one of the candidates whose OMR answer sheet and corresponding data were allegedly manipulated. It has also come on record that his father, a Vyapam official, was associated with post-examination processes, including supervision of scanning activities, and allegedly did not disclose that his son was a candidate in the said examination, as required under departmental norms. The prosecution case is that such non-disclosure facilitated access and manipulation as part of a larger conspiracy involving officials and other beneficiaries.

13. In view of the aforesaid material, particularly the forensic report indicating variation of ink in the OMR answer sheets and the findings of manipulation of scanned data, it cannot be conclusively determined at this stage whether the petitioner's OMR sheet was in fact manipulated or whether he had any role or knowledge in the alleged acts. These aspects require appreciation of evidence, including expert reports and witness testimonies, which can only be undertaken during trial.

14. It would be revealed from the petitioner's OMR sheet and the FSL report whether the OMR sheet was subjected to manipulation or not. Therefore, it is a matter for trial, and at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the petitioner. These facts may be properly scrutinized at the stage of framing of charge or during trial.

15. The Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399 has observed that as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23731

6 MCRC-4768-2026 per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. For the purpose of clarity, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:

"4.1. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not"

16. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. The petitioner

shall face trial for the offences for which the charge-sheet has been filed.

However, it is observed that all contentions and defences available to the parties

are kept open to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

The learned Trial Court shall proceed to consider the matter, including framing of

charges (if not framed), strictly in accordance with law and without being

influenced by any observations made in the present order.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE

Praveen