Madras High Court
N.Pradeep vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 10097 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10097 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.6730 and 6731 of 2025
N.Pradeep ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police -I,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2.D.Uma ..Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the final report
dated 10.03.2021 and additional final report dated 04.10.2023 in
C.C.No.4358 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same insofar as this petitioner is
concerned (Accused No.284).
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
Crl.O.P.No. 10097 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wilson,
Senior Counsel for
M/S Victor Zacarias Victor
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (crl.side).
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.
4358 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint lodged by
the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime
No. 468 of 2017 for offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420,
120B, 201 of IPC r/w 66 and 43(i) of Information Technology Act, 2008.
The second respondent was selected as the nodel agency to recruit
Lecturers for Government Polytechnic Colleges by the Commissioner of
Technical Education, Chennai. Accordingly, the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
entered into a tri-party agreement with M/s Datatec Methodox Pvt. Ltd.,
and ELCOT for a period of 12 months and extended to three years upto
31.07.2017. Subsequently, a notification was published inviting
applications for the posts of Lecturers, and an examination was
conducted on 16.09.2017. The OMR answer sheets used in the
examination were sealed in strong boxes and kept in a strong room under
armed police escort with CCTV coverage. After the sealed boxes were
opened, they were tallied with the attendance register. The OMR sheets
were scanned, and the scanned data was stored in a hard disk. The second
respondent, as per the instructions of the Chairman, provided the hard
disk containing the scanned OMR sheets to the relevant authorities.
3. While being so, on 06.10.2017, the tentative answer keys for all
15 subjects were uploaded by the second respondent through Datatech.
The final answer keys and orders were forwarded to Datatech for
processing on 31.10.2017. Datatech then prepared a general merit list for
certificate verification in a 1:2 ratio, which was verified and approved by
the second respondent before releasing the result and calling candidates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
for certificate verification. However, after the publication of the merit
list, a complaint was received through the PM/CM Cell alleging that
candidates from the Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE)
discipline, who had scored lower marks in the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board (TNEB) exam, had been ranked in the Teacher Recruitment Board
(TRB) exam. That apart, a petition was received on RTI application from
various candidates who sought the OMR sheets and scanned images of
the OMR sheets. On comparison, discrepancies were found in the
scanned images of the OMR sheets of 19 candidates.
4. Subsequently, further investigation revealed that certain
answers, which were worth two marks, had not been shaded in the hard
disk furnished by the second respondent, though they were found to be
shaded in the processing data OMR copies received from Datatech. This
discrepancy was reported to the Chairman. To ensure transparency, the
second respondent ordered a re-evaluation of the OMR images of
candidates who had been called for certificate verification. Upon re-
evaluation, discrepancies were found in the entries of 109 candidates. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
a result, it was decided to re-evaluate all the OMR sheets, and a revised
list of candidates was prepared. The re-evaluation revealed discrepancies
in the marks of 225 candidates from the certificate verification list, as
compared to the marks published at the time of the original result. Three
marks were found to be mistakenly awarded to 29 candidates, while
marks ranging from 25 to 104 were found to be altered for 196
candidates. Therefore, the marks of these 196 candidates, after their
written competitive examination, were found to have been fraudulently
altered, and therefore, the earlier result was withdrawn on 11.12.2017.
Subsequently, the final answer keys were published for the benefit of the
candidates from 11.12.2017. Pursuant to this, the second respondent
issued a Show Cause Notice to Datatech, however, no reply was
received. Hence, the complaint.
5.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.284 and has no involvement in the
alleged offence. There is no specific allegation as against the petitioner
in the final report or the additional final report filed by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
respondent. In fact, no witness has mentioned the petitioner's
involvement in any overt act that would attract any of the offences.
Moreover, the petitioner was not a successful candidate in the
examination conducted by the second respondent. Therefore, it is
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused,
particularly in the additional final report.
6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that
the FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, implicating the petitioner in a conspiracy to alter OMR
answer sheets and manipulate examination results. The investigation
revealed fraudulent alterations in the marks of 196 candidates. Despite
failing the examination, the petitioner is linked to the criminal conspiracy
involving fraudulent data manipulation and forgery. The petitioner’s
involvement in the offence is substantiated by the evidence of the
conspiracy, and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) prays for
dismissal of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this
Court.
8. On perusal of the records, it is evident that though the petitioner
failed in the written examination, the petitioner's OMR sheet was
corrected by Datatech. This case involves fraud and forgery aimed at
cheating, with all the accused having entered into a criminal conspiracy.
By utilizing information technology and expertise, the OMR answer
sheets and data of 196 candidates were altered, leading to wrongful gain
for certain individuals. Accused persons 1 to 4, after securing the
extension of their contract with the second respondent for IT-enabled
services, entered into a criminal conspiracy in July 2017. They
fraudulently used the internet and advanced technology to alter the
digital data, thereby changing the results to favour certain candidates and
to the detriment of other loyal candidates. These actions were carried out
for unlawful gain, with the active involvement of two technicians. The
accused persons collected materials from Universal Printers at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
Madhavaram Junction, comprising 101 packets containing OMR answer
sheets, and intentionally transported them via GRK Transport for
fraudulent purposes.
9. Moreover, the candidates involved, who possessed the
necessary educational qualifications, entrusted their original certificates
to the accused, knowingly engaging in unlawful activities to secure their
selection over honest candidates by altering the examination results. The
petitioner, along with others, was well aware of the rules, regulations,
and procedures of the examination and the consequences of indulging in
malpractice. They deliberately chose to violate these rules and committed
fraud in the examination.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported
in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing
with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the
High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi
Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark
upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the
Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint
which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences
complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and
whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused
will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would
arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
13. That apart, this Court cannot observe at this stage that the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this
stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
14. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.4358 of 2024 on the file of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai as against the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Further, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and complete
the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.04.2025
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
shk
To
1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
2.The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police -I,
Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
shk
Crl.O.P.No.10097 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.6730 and 6731 of 2025
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:43 pm )
