Allahabad High Court
Nisakuddin Beg vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22408 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
3. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 28620/2024 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar and others) under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 IT Act and Section 9/10 U.P.Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, PS- Pipraich, District Gorakhpur including charge-sheet no. 201/2024 dated 13.03.2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 307/2022 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 31.05.2024 passed by court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in so far concerned to applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant being aspirant for the post of Sub-Inspector, U.P.Police for which he appeared for recruitment examination which was held on 15.11.2021 and 02.12.2021 and there was hardly any instance occurred on the scheduled date of examination but after the gap of more than 7 months a First Information Report has been registered at Case Crime no. 307 of 2022 on dated 08.07.2022 and as per the narration of the FIR, the entire allegation put forward against the applicant is nothing but questioning of the IQ level of the applicant without having any substantial evidence in respect of use of any electronic device or any means through which some external help has been sought by the applicant.
5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during investigation, certain statement has been recorded by concerned Investigating Officer from concerned persons who were authorized to conduct the examination by exam conducting agency i.e. NSEIT and as per the statement recorded by competent authority of exam conducting authority of NSEIT there is hardly any allegation put forward especially against applicant in respect of using any external help or support through electronic mode and as such without having any substantial evidences, concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge sheet whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned without considering the material fact that prima facie no offence has been made out against the applicant. In absence of any strict proof of evidence collected by concerned Investigating Officer during course of investigation charge sheet has been submitted and the charge sheet whatsoever has been submitted by Investigating Officer, is merely on the basis of presumption that applicant attempted 160 questions within 45 minutes wherein 134 attempted questions were correct and 26 were incorrect and certain assessment has been drawn by Superintendent of Police (under Secretary Recruitment) in respect of calculating the entire time to solve 160 questions by a normal person and it is presumed that certain external electronic help has been sought by the applicant whereupon the FIR has been instituted and the charge-sheet has been preferred by concerned Investigating officer, since no prima facie case has been made out even then cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned.
6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State supported the order dated 31.05.2024 through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. and it is submitted that certain electronic device has been used by the applicant since it is not possible to solve 160 questions within time frame which has been utilized by the applicant wherein 134 attempted questions were correct.
7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that the initiation of registration of FIR at Case Crime no. 307 of 2022 is only at the behest of presumption that the time frame within which the question paper has been attempted and submitted by the applicant is beyond the capacity to attempt, wherein 134 questions were attempted as correct, this presumption has been drawn by concerned police authorities who were assigned the duty to conduct the examination which culminated into lodging FIR against the applicant.
8. It is also apparent from the different statements recorded by witnesses during investigation that there is no any direct evidence in shape of using electronic device or any online mode for receiving any information by the applicant from outside during recruitment examination for post of Sub-Inspector, U.P.Police but even though charge sheet has been preferred by concerned Investigating Officer whereupon a detailed order under Section 193 Cr.P.C. has been passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
9. It is a trite law which is applicable over a judicial officer that while taking cognizance of offence it is to see that whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not? The only consideration with regard to having satisfaction by judicial consciousness by concerned Magistrate/Sessions Judge for taking cognizance under Section 190, 193 Cr.P.C. respectively against accused need not require to be mentioned while passing order of taking cognizance of offence and summoning the accused but at the same time as per the criminal jurisprudence no case can be instituted against any person at criminal side on the basis of presumption. Although the power is available with the Investigating Officer in respect of holding any suspected person who might be involved in carrying any offence and as such there is an act itself between suspect and presumed person, no criminal proceeding be initiated based solely on presumption. The principle of presumption of innocence dictates that an accused is presumed innocent until proving guilty, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt according to legal sources. The principle of presumption of innocence is not merely a right but principle for the State to exercise its coercive powers. The principle of presumption safeguards the right of the individual against wrong conviction and anything contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence would be against justice and will result in miscarriage of justice and as such presumption of innocence is a human right which cannot be rejected and the same has been defined under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India which is a fundamental right available to a common citizen of the country.
10. In the instant matter, there is hardly any evidence of using unfair means in shape of receiving information/message from outside through any electronic device which is apparent through the statement recorded during investigation by different authorities such as examination conducting authority and the police officials who are responsible for conducting examination of Sub-Inspector, U.P. Police Recruitment and as such order dated 31.05.2024 passed by court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur is against the principle of presumption of innocence. The applicant cannot be held responsible only on the basis of measuring his IQ level since there is hardly any scale available for measuring IQ level of any individual and the entire allegation whatsoever has been put forward against the applicant is only on the basis of presumption that no one can solve number of questions within the limited period and as such the entire proceeding carried out by different authorities in shape of lodging FIR, conducting investigation and thereafter order under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is bad in the eye of law.
11. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is hardly any evidence available, presuming the applicant being involved in pursuance to Section 420 of IPC and Section 66 IT Act along with Section 9/10 of U.P.Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act and the entire proceeding of criminal case no. 28620 of 2024 (State vs. Nisakuddin Beg) arising out of Case Crime no. 307 of 2022 is hereby set aside only in respect of applicant namely Dinesh Kumar. So far as result of the applicant is concerned, the responsible authorities for conducting examination of Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector, Recruitment Examination are hereby directed to declare result of the applicant on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination forthwith.
12. The application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly.
August 25, 2025 #Vik/-