Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Sharma vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54164 of 2024
SUDHIR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54166 of 2024
SUDHIR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54167 of 2024
SUDHIR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54169 of 2024
SUDHIR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocate for the
petitioner in M.Cr.C.No.54166/2024 and M.Cr.C.No.54169/2024 and Shri Kapil Sharma
- Advocate for the Petitioner in M.Cr.C.No.54164/2024 and M.Cr.C.No.54167/2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-05-2025
10:24:25
2
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the Respondent/CBI.
..........................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Reserved on : 15/04/2025)
(Pronounced on : 19/05/2025)
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.
The present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR and subsequent charge sheet so also the order passed by the trial court whereby the application for discharge filed by the present applicant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.
2. Though the four cases arises out of four different crime numbers but since the accused in the four petitions is the same and the allegation against the present applicant in the four cases are identical in nature therefore, these four petitions were taken up for hearing analogously and are decided by this common order.
3. M.Cr.C. No.54164/2024 has been filed arising out of FIR registered by STF Bhopal at Crime No.17/2013 under Sections 420,467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, Section 65, 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2005 as well as 3(D)-(1)(2)read with section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1937. The investigation was later on handed over to CBI and was registered as FIR RC 2017 2015 A0020.
4. M.Cr.C. No.54166/2014 has been filed arising out of FIR registered by STF Bhopal at Crime No.18/2013 under Sections U/s 420,467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, Section 65, 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2005 as well as 3(D)(1)(2)read with section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 3 Examinations Act, 1937. The investigation was later on handed over to CBI and was registered as FIR No.RC 2017 2015 A 0152.
5. M.Cr.C. No.54167/2024 has been filed arising out of FIR registered by STF Bhopal at Crime No.20/2013 under Sections U/s 420,467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, Section 65, 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2005 as well as 3(D)(1)(2)read with section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1937. The investigation was later on handed over to CBI and was registered as FIR No.RC 2017 2015 A 0016.
6. M.Cr.C. No.54169 /2024 has been filed arising out of FIR registered by STF Bhopal at Crime No.04/2015 under Sections U/s 420,467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, Section 65, 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2005 as well as 3(D)(1)(2)read with section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1937. The investigation was later on handed over to CBI and was registered as FIR No. RC 2017 2015 A 0008.
7. In all the aforesaid cases initially the FIR was registered by the STF, M.P. Police Bhopal relating to different recruitment tests / selection tests conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board. There is allegation of malpractices in the said examinations that numbers / marks actually obtained by the candidates were manipulated by the officials of VYAPAM and the actual marks obtained by such candidates were increased in the tabulation chart prepared by the officials of VYAPAM which occurred in various manner. In some cases the scanned data of OMR answer sheets were manipulated while in some cases the marks obtained were increased in the tabulation chart whereby the disqualified candidates were declared qualified in the test. The investigation of the said crimes were transferred by the STF to CBI treating it to be VYAPAM scam case under the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter the CBI Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 4 registered FIRs in the different cases in the manner as already indicated above and charge sheet has been filed by the CBI and the applicant is being prosecuted by the CBI.
8. The four cases arise out of different recruitment tests conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board (commonly known as VYAPAM which is acronym of its Hindi name) for different recruitments of services of State Government during the period 2011 to 2013. M.Cr.C. No 54164/2024 is in respect of Police Recruitment Test -2012, M.CR.C. No. 54166/2024 is in respect of Police Constable Recruitment Test-2012 (PCRT-2012), M.Cr.C. No. 54167/ 2024 is in respect of Contract Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 while the fourth case i.e. M.Cr.C. No.54169/2024 is in respect of Forest Guard Recruitment Test-2013 (FGRT-2013). In all the four cases the FIRs are different but the allegations against the present applicant are of similar nature i.e. of acting as a middleman to secure selection of certain candidates in different four examinations which were conducted for recruitment of various Class-III positions in the State Government services. The applicant has been alleged as an accused in all the said four cases and the allegations are of similar nature though related to different recruitment tests. Therefore all these four cases were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
9. The present applicant is stated to be a middleman between main racketeer and the candidates or between the racketeer and the VYAPAM officials. However, the facts of all the four cases would be dealt with separately so as to avoid any confusion. In all the four cases the allegation is common that the Controller of Examination of VYAPAM i.e. Pankaj Trivedi and System Analyst i.e. Nitin Mohindra used to manipulate the answers actually scored by the candidates by either manipulating the OMR answer Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 5 sheets or by manipulating the tabulation chart of the marks obtained by respective candidates.
M.Cr.C. No. 54164/202410. The primary allegation in the instant FIR is against the Principal System Analyst of VYAPAM namely one Nitin Mohindra and Asstt. Programmer namely one C.K. Mishra. After investigating the offices of aforementioned persons certain hard disks and other data was found which pointed out to the fact that aforementioned persons were involved in the malpractices in relation to selection test of Sub-Inspector / Subedar/ Platoon Commander Recruitment Test 2012.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that an excel sheet was recovered from the possession of these two individuals wherein names of 21 candidates whose examination data mismatches with the original data of marks obtained by these candidates and after enquiry an excel sheet was seized by the police mentioning the incriminating data.
12. It is argued that specific allegations against the present applicant are that he recommended names of certain candidates to be given preference in the aforesaid examination conducted by VYAPAM. It is argued that no recovery has taken place from the applicant in pursuance to memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by any of the co-accused persons including the candidates who were allegedly referred by the petitioner herein. It is further argued that even if the allegations are taken as gospel truth the only allegation against the present applicant is that he has helped certain candidates and the entire case is based on memorandum of co-accused students which has no legal bearing in the eyes of law because memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not a piece of evidence and no prosecution can take place only on the basis of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 6 memorandum of co-accused persons unless the connecting links are established during the course of investigation.
13. In this case the main middleman is alleged to be one Sanjeev Saxena who is accused No.27 in the charge sheet. The allegation in the charge sheet against the present applicant who is accused No.23 is summarized at page 68 of the charge-sheet as under:-
"Sudhir Sharma (A-23) (Middleman):-
Investigation revealed that the accused Sudhir Sharma (A-23) played the role of middleman and provided the name of the candidates Gajendra Singh, Jyoti Sahu, Kehar Singh Rajput and Santosh Sharma to Nitin Mohindra (A-6) through the Controller of Examination, Pankaj Trivedi for ensuring their selection in PRT-2012 (Police Sub- Inspector/Subedar/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination 2012).
Investigation further revealed that Sudhir Sharma (A-23) is the businessman and engaged in mines business in the area of Madhya Pradesh. In the memo w/s 27 IEA of the accused Sanjiv Saxena recorded by STF vide which he admitted that he knew Kehar Singh Rajput and Gajendra Singh, both working as constables in the state govt. Both appeared in PRT examination-2012 and for getting undue favour in the illegal selection, they contacted to him. Both of them agreed to pay of Rs 15 lakhs each. For this work, he contacted to Sudhir Sharma. Both were selected in the written test in PRT examination. But in the physical test Gajendra Singh was declared as failed. He took the illegal amount of 8 lakhs each from Kehar Singh Rajput and Gajendra Singh as advance. Kehar Singh Rajput was finally selected and after his selection, he paid 7 lakhs. Thus, he got a sum of Rs.23 Lakhs from 02 candidates. Further, he admitted that the name and roll no. of the candidate Jyoti Sahu, was sponsored by Varsha Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 7 Baghel, another middleman and he had forwarded the same to Sudhir Sharma.
Investigation further revealed that the name, Roll No. of the accused candidates Gajendra Singh, Jyoti Sahu, Kehar Singh Rajput and Santosh Sharma and the name of the middleman Sudhir Sharma and illegal amount of Rs 0 is written in the excel sheet against aforesaid 04 accused candidates.
Investigation further revealed that the Vyapam officials in conspiracy with the middleman Sudhir Sharma manipulated the digital data and OMR answer sheets of the sponsored candidate of Sudhir Sharma and given higher marks to the candidate to secure their selection in the exam. The accused candidate got selected in the said examination, thereby deprived the deserving candidate from getting employment.
Besides this case the accused middleman Sudhir Sharma is also accused in other CBI case no.152/15 in which he has been Charge Sheeted by CBI"
14. It was contended that even as per contents of the charge sheet the case is based only upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons and of the present applicant and there is no substantial piece of evidence collected against the present applicant during the course of investigation.
15. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the CBI that the present applicant played the role of middleman and provided the names of 4 candidates to Nitin Mohindra and Pankaj Trivedi for ensuring their selection in PRT-2012. It is argued that in the disclosure memo under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by the co-accused Sanjeev Saxena it is disclosed that he knew Kehar Singh and Gajendra Singh who appeared in the PRT Examination-2012 and contacted him for getting undue favour in the selection. For this work he contacted the present applicant. It is further Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 8 argued that in the excel sheet recovered from the other co-accused person, the name of present applicant is written against the names of certain candidates and amount of 'Rs.0' is written against the aforesaid four accused candidates for whom the present applicant is alleged to have acted as middleman. It is argued that VYAPAM officials in conspiracy with the present applicant who was middleman manipulated the digital data and OMR answer sheets of the sponsored candidates and gave higher marks to those candidates to qualify in the said competitive examination/ test.
16. Heard.
17. In the present case looking to the allegations in the charge sheet against the present applicant which has been encapsulated in the charge sheet itself and quoted above it is clear that the applicant is alleged to have played the role of middle man and provided the names of four candidates to Nitin Mohindra through Pankaj Trivedi for ensuring their selection in the PRT-2012 examination. It is alleged that as per memorandum under Section 27 given by the co-accused Sanjeev Saxena he contacted the present applicant and two candidates were selected in the PRT Examination but in the Physical Test one was declared as failed. As per allegations against the present applicant in the memorandum under Section 27 given by accused Sanjeev Saxena, he directly took the illegal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- each from Kehar Singh Rajput and Gajendra Singh and further took remaining amount from Kehar Singh Rajput who got selected. He also submitted that names and Roll numbers of two other candidates were sponsored by one Varsha Baghel another middleman and he had forwarded the same to one Sudhir Sharma. In the excel-sheet maintained by these officials of VYAPAM amount of Rs.0 is written against the aforesaid four accused candidates whom the present applicant Sudhir Sharma is stated to have sponsored. It has been alleged in the charge sheet that the VYAPAM officials in Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 9 conspiracy with the middleman Sudhir Sharma i.e. present applicant manipulated the digital data and OMR answer sheets of the sponsored candidates of Sudhir Sharma so as to give higher marks to these candidates as compared to marks actually obtained by them.
18. From the aforesaid summary of allegations against the present applicant as contained in the charge sheet and as quoted above, it is clear that there is no allegation of the present applicant having accepted any money or having given any money to any official of VYAPAM. Whatever manipulation has been done in datasheets of VYAPAM was allegedly done by officials of VYAPAM and not by the present applicant even as per the charge sheet allegations. In the excel sheet an amount of Rs.0 is written against the name of present applicant which does not lead to any conclusion either here or there. The memorandums of co-accused persons do not disclose that they had given any money to the applicant or they had received any money from the applicant.
19. In the reply filed by the CBI it has been alleged that the case is based on disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act of co-accused Sanjeev Saxena wherein it is disclosed that he knew Kehar Singh and Gajendra Singh who appeared in PRT Examination-2012 and contacted him for getting undue favour in the selection and for this work he contacted the present applicant. It is argued that VYAPAM officials were in conspiracy with the present applicant who was the middleman and also that conspiracy is behind the closed door and cannot be expressly established and it is to be inferred from the circumstances. However, when coming to allegation against the present applicant in the present case as contained in the charge sheet after conclusion of investigation, the co-accused Sanjeev Saxena directly brokered deal with Kehar Singh Rajput and Gajendra Singh and he directly took illegal amount from Kehar Singh Rajput and Gajendra Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 10 who were the accused candidates. It is alleged that thereafter he forwarded the names of these candidates to Sudhir Sharma the present applicant and then the VYAPAM officials in collusion with the present applicant manipulated the digital data. Therefore, the allegation against the present applicant in this case is of acting as middleman between Sajeev Saxena and VYAPAM officials. However, as per the allegations contained in the charge sheet even as per memorandum statement of co-accused Sanjeev Saxena there is no allegation of he having given or taken any money from present applicant. In absence of giving or taking any money to or from the present applicant and in absence of any assertion in charge sheet that the present applicant brokered a deal between Sanjeev Saxena and VYAPAM officials, no ingredients of applicant being a middleman in the transaction are made out from the perusal of charge-sheet and it appears that there are no ingredients which prima-facie constitute an offence on which the applicant can be put to trial.
M.Cr.C. No. 54166 of 202420. This case relates to Police Constable Recruitment Test- 2012 and in this case also the present applicant is alleged to be a middleman. It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that he had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with VYAPAM officials namely Nitin Mohindra, Pankaj Trivedi and middleman Sajeev Saxena and helped six accused- candidates namely Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Parveen Sharma, Ankit Rawat, Durgesh Singh, Brijesh Sahu and Bharat Singh Thakur in their illegal selection and he was part of the chain as he acted as an mediator between the intermediatory Ramshesh Sharma or Sanjeev Saxena on one hand and VYAPAM official Nitin Mohindra on the other hand. As per the charge sheet allegations the accused Ramshesh Sharma who is relative of present applicant contacted him to help in selection of his son and another person Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 11 Sudhir Sharma (who is namesake of present applicant) in the said examination and the present applicant was well known to Pankaj Trivedi the then Controller of Examination of VYAPAM. Therefore, the present applicant allegedly gave the roll-numbers of these two candidates to Pankaj Trivedi and both of them are his relatives and it was to get them to have passed the said examination. It is further alleged that the present applicant, knew middleman Sanjeev Saxena as both were studying together at some point of time at Jhabua and at the instance of Sanjeev Saxena he requested to forward names of three accused candidates for ensuring their illegal selection.
21. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that no recovery has taken place from the applicant in pursuance to memorandums taken of co- accused person and that the entire case is based on memorandum of co- accused persons. There is no independent material collected against the present applicant and no money trail has been established and memorandum statements have no legal bearing in the eyes of law because it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, the entire case against the present applicant being based on non-existent material deserves to be quashed.
22. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the present applicant acted as middleman with VYAPAM officials and helped six candidates to secure wrongful selection. It is further contended that the term 'help' in relation to the accused candidates has a definite legal connotation and legal context and is used to describe the petitioner's involvement in criminal act as duly brought on record by evidence collected during the course of investigation. It is argued that the case against the present applicant is based on memorandum statement of co-accused Ramshesh Sharma and other accused persons so also the excel sheet retrieved from hard disk of System Analyst of VYAPAM namely Nitin Mohindra in which the name of present applicant is mentioned as Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 12 middleman and call details between the present applicant and Sanjeev Saxena have been established so also between the present applicant and accused candidates.
23. Heard.
24. The allegations against the present applicant are summarized in the charge sheet itself upon closure of investigation which are as under:
"Sudhir Sharma He has acted as a middleman /Racketeer in PCRT-2012 and has entered into criminal conspiracy with Vyapam officials Nitin Mohindra, Pankaj Trivedi and middleman Sanjeev Saxena and thereby helped 06 accused candidates Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Parveen Sharma, Ankit Rawat, Durgesh Singh, Brijesh Sahu and Bharat Singh Thakur in their illegal selection. He is part of the following chains:-
XXX XXX XXX XXX Investigation has revealed that the accused Ramshesh Sharma who is distant relative(Jija) of the accused Sudhir Sharma contacted him to help him in selection of his son Parveen Sharma and nephew(namesake) Sudhir Kumar Sharma in PCRT-2012 as the accused Sudhir Sharma was acquainted with Pankaj Trivedi. Accordingly, 'the accused middleman/racketeer Sudhir Sharma who was working as chairman of CRISP (Centre for Research and Industrial Staff Performance) in 2012 gave the names and roll numbers of these two candidates and told Pankaj Trivedi that both of them are his relatives and they should pass the PCRT-2012.
Investigation has further revealed that the accused Sudhir Sharma knew the accused middleman Sanjeev Saxena as both studied together at Jhabua. Sanjeev Saxena requested him to forward the names of his 3 accused candidates Durgesh Singh, Brijesh Sahu and Bharat SinghThakur to Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 13 Trivedi, for ensuring their illegal selection. Investigation has also revealed that the accused candidate Ankit Rawat had contacted Sudhir Sharma who in turn contacted Pankaj Trivedi to help him in his selection."
25. From perusal of the said allegations against the present applicant it is evident that the allegation is that he acted as middleman between Ramshesh Sharma or Sanjeev Saxena on one hand and Nitin Mohindra who was VYAPAM official on the other hand and secured the wrongful selection of six candidates. He is alleged to have told the VYAPAM officials Nitin Mohindra and Pankaj Trivedi that the candidates are his relatives and they must any how pass the PCRT-2012. This is the all allegation against the present applicant in the charge sheet which has been summarized by the CBI itself in the charge sheet and as stated above in this order.
26. In the reply filed by the CBI the aforesaid allegations have been reiterated and apart from that it has been contended that the case is based on sufficient evidence and that the present applicant helped the accused-candidates and the meaning of term 'help' has a distinct legal connotation and legal context in the present case which means a criminal help to get the seats secured in the recruitment test.
27. It is further contended that sufficient evidence is there in the nature of memorandum of present accused -applicant so also of co-accused Ramshesh Sharma and other co-accused persons. It is further pointed out that there are call details between the present applicant and other middleman and that in the excel sheet retrieved from the hard disk of computer of Nitin Mohindra, the name of present applicant is mentioned as middleman. Though the name of the present applicant has been mentioned in the excel sheet recovered from Nitin Mohindra but no trail of money exchanging hands between the petitioner on one hand or the VYAPAM officials or the candidates or racketeers on the other hand has been established during the course of investigation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 1428. The aforesaid allegations of the charge sheet as summarized above by the CBI does not mention any allegation that any candidate paid any specific amount to the present applicant or the present applicant paid a specific amount to VYAPAM officials or that any deal was brokered by the present applicant between the VYAPAM officials on the one hand and candidates or racketeers on the other hand. Therefore, all allegations against the present applicant are based on memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the applicant or other co-accused persons and nothing else. The excel sheet recovered from computer of other co-accused Nitin Mohindra though may be sufficient to investigate the matter but mere entry in excel sheet may not be sufficient to put the applicant to trial unless any money had been recovered or any money trail could have been established during the course of investigation. The investigating agency miserably failed to place on record any trail of money corresponding to allegations in the charge sheet either transaction by co-accused candidate or transacted by the racketeer or transacted by the present applicant. In absence of establishment of any money trail, in absence of any recovery of any money or any other incriminating document from the present applicant or from the other co-accused person incriminating the present applicant therein, it is evident that the case against the present applicant is based on non-existent material and on mere surmises and conjectures. No ingredients of applicant being a middleman in the transaction are made out from perusal of the charge sheet and it appears that there are no ingredients in the charge sheet which prima facie constitutes an offence on which the applicant can be put to trial.
M.Cr.C. NO. 54167 /202429. In the present case the allegations against the present applicant as alleged in the charge sheet are that in relation to Contract Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 in order to increase his political clout the present applicant got Sandhya Pandey who is sister of his acquaintance Rakesh Pandey and his sister-in-law Premlata Pandey to qualify the said test by manipulating the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 15 examination process in collusion with officials of VYAPAM and in this manner the actual marks obtained by Sandhya Pandey were increased from 49.58 to 111 and those obtained by Premlata Pandey were increased from 34.34 to 111. The available evidence as collected in the investigation against the present applicant as mentioned in the charge sheet is hard-disk seized from co-accused Nitin Mohindra who was System Analyst of VYAPAM wherein excel sheet containing the names of these two candidates was found and memorandum of co-accused Rakesh Pandey was taken who was related to these two candidates and further a SMS sent by Rakesh Pandey from his mobile number to the present applicant on 05.09.2012 was found in which the names of the two candidates along with roll-numbers were mentioned.
30. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the said material cannot be said to be sufficient to put the present applicant to trial and there is no real material available against the present applicant and the material available does not hold it establish prima facie that the present applicant stood as middleman in the matter, even if the allegations and material as contained in the charge sheet are proved as they are.
31. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition by referring to reply and it is contended that VYAPAM officials were in conspiracy with the present applicant and they manipulated the digital data and OMR answer sheets of these two candidates and gave higher marks to these two candidates to secure their selection in the examination which deprived the rightful candidate from getting employment. It is contended that the present applicant has been charge sheeted on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and the SMS sent by the co-accused Rakesh Pandey who was brother and brother-in-law of the two candidates to the mobile number of present applicant containing roll-numbers and names of the two candidates has been found to be sent Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 16 which establishes the role and involvement of the present applicant. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant in the matter and he has helped the said two candidates in securing wrongful selection in the selection test and the word help has specific connotation and legal context in the present matter which amounts to criminal complicacy of the present applicant. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present application for quashing the prosecution.
32. Upon hearing the counsel for the rival parties it is seen that as per the allegations of the charge sheet the following has been mentioned against the present applicant.
** uke vkjksih%& lq/khj 'kekZ firk fo|kjke 'kekZ] mez 44 lky] fuoklh Mh&55] vkd`fr xkMZu usg: uxj] Fkkuk deuk uxj] Hkksiky vkjksih dk d`R; %& vkjksih lw/khj 'kekZ tks fd jk"Vªh; Lo;alsod la?k }kjk lapkfyr laLFkk foKku Hkkjrh dk lnL; Fkk ftlus vius in ds izHkko ls vius jktuSfrd izHkqRo dks lekt us LFkkfir djus ,oa dk;ZdrkZvksa ds chp c<+kus das vk'k; ls vius ifjfpr jkds'k ik.Ms dh cgu la/;k ik.Ms ,oa HkkHkh Jhefr izseyrk ik.Mss dks vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk iz;ksx djds ijh{kk esa lQyrk fnykus ds fy, vkijkf/kd "kM;a= ds rgr mDr nksuksa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke o jksy uacj O;kie ds vkjksih vf/kdkfj;ksa dks nsdj muls lsfVax djds O;kie }kjk vk;ksftr lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd oxZ&2 ik=rk ijh{kk o"kZ 2011 esa vH;fFkZ;ksa la/;k ik.Ms }kjk ijh{kk esa izkIr vlR; 49-58 vadks dks vuqfpr rjhds ls c<+okdj 111 vad ,oa vH;fFkZ;k izseyrk ik.Ms }kjk ijh{kk esa izkIr vly 34-34 vadks dks vuqfpr rjhds ls c<+okdj 111 vad QthZ rjhds ls fnyokdj mDr nksuksa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ijh{kk esa lQyrk fnykbZ gSA bl izdkj vkjksih lq/khj 'kekZ }kjk "kM;U=iw.kZ O;kie ds vkjksih vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ls lkaBxkB djds vuqfpr rjhds ls vH;fFkZ;k la/;k ik.Ms ,oa Jhefr izseyrk ik.Ms dks ijh{kk ls lnks"k ykHk fnykrs gq, ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lnks"k gkfu igqapkdj laxfBr fxjksg ds lnL; ds :Ik esa xaHkhj vijk/k ?kfVr fd;k gSA vkjksih ds fo:) miyC/k lk{; %& Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 17 1& Mh,Q,l xka/khuxj ¼xqtjkr½ ls izkIr vkjksih fufru eksfgUnzk dh gkMZfMLd ds fjVho MkVk dh ,Dly 'khV ftlesa vH;fFkZ;ka la/;k ik.Ms dk uke ,oa jksy uEcj 36213523 rFkk vH;fFkZ;k ih0 ¼izseyrk ik.Ms½ dk uke o jksy uEcj 41214282 ys[k gSA 2& O;kie ds nLrkost ,oa ewy ufLr;kaA 3& O;kie ds vf/kdkjh@ deZpkfj;ksa ,oa vU; lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuA 4& vH;fFkZ;k la/;k ik.Ms ,oa izseyrk ik.Ms dh vks-,e-vkj 'khV ,oa mlds ewY;kadu lEca/kh O;kie ls tIr nLrkostA 5& O;kie ls izkIr vkjksih@ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vks-,e-vkj 'khV dh eSfiax ,oa vly ijh{kk ifj.kkeA 6& O;kie ls izkIr vkjksih@vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vly vadks ,oa ifjofrZr vadks ds laca/k esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ A 7& vkjksih jkds'k ik.Ms dk eseksj.s MeA 8& vkjksih lq/khj 'kekZ ds eksckbZy ua0 9425925911 @9826386089 ij vkjksih jkds'k ik.Ms }kjk fnukad 05@09@2012 ds 21%03 cts Hkstk x;k ,l0,e0,l0 ftlesa lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd xzsM&2 izseyrk ik.Ms 41214282 HkkHkhth la/;k ik.Ms 36213523 cgu MkW0 jkds'k ik.Ms ys[k gSA
33. This is the entire allegation against the present applicant in which it is mentioned that he brought about selection of two candidates related to co- accused Rakesh Pandey in the Contract Teacher Selection test and in the excel sheet recovered from Nitin Mohindra, System Analyst of VYAPAM, the names of these two candidates have been found apart from which there is memorandum statements of co-accused Rakesh Pandey and the SMS were sent from the mobile number of Rakesh Pandey to the present applicant. In the present case the allegation against the present applicant is not of manipulating the OMR data and the said allegation is on officials of VYAPAM. The allegation is not also of getting selected in the selection test but of acting as middleman. However, nowhere in the entire charge sheet it Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 18 has been mentioned against the applicant that the applicant received any consideration from any candidate or paid any consideration to the VYAPAM officials. It has not been alleged in the aforesaid para of the charge sheet that the present applicant even brokered the money deal between the VYAPAM officials and the candidates or other relatives.
34. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was heavily relied by the counsel for the CBI. However, the said memorandum alone cannot become a piece of conclusive evidence so as to put a person to trial because no other circumstances have been placed on record apart from one SMS sent by relative of accused candidate i.e. Rakesh Pandey to the present applicant.
35. Merely upon receiving SMS from a person mentioning name and roll- number of candidates, the recipient person cannot be said to have had a complicacy in the matter, unless other circumstances are established during the course of investigation against the said person. In the present case apart from the memorandum statement of co-accused Rakesh Pandey and the aforesaid two SMSs nothing else has been established against the present applicant. The SMS even if proved during trial cannot be said to have established any criminal proximity of the present applicant to the alleged crime of securing selection. The actual interpolation in the OMR data sheets has not been alleged to be carried by the applicant. In the reply filed by the CBI before this Court, the CBI has also heavily relied on the SMS sent by Rakesh Pandey who was relative of accused candidates to the present applicant and nothing more has been alleged even in the reply apart from memorandum statement of Rakesh Pandey and on this ground it is stated that there is sufficient material against the present applicant for his role as middleman and he is stated to have conspired with Pankaj Trivedi and other Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 19 VYAPAM Officials to ensure selection of the two candidates in the examination.
36. In view of the above, there is no allegation of any transaction or even demand of any money or any allegation of brokering a specific deal between the accused candidates and the officials of the Board. No ingredients of applicant being a middleman in the transaction are made out from perusal of the charge sheet and it appears that there are no ingredients in the charge sheet which prima facie constitutes an offence on which the applicant can be put to trial.
M.Cr.C. No.54169/202437. The present case relates to Forest Guard Recruitment Test, 2013 and the present applicant is alleged to be a middleman in the matter. As per the allegations against him co-accused Ramshesh Sharma requested for help of the present applicant in getting two of his relatives namely Rishikesh Sharma and Mukesh Sharma selected in the said test and on his instructions Ramshesh Sharma handed over roll numbers of these two persons to Pankaj Trivedi who was the co-accused. However, later on, a former M.P. of Lok Sabha Constituency gave roll numbers of three candidates belonging to his constituency and asked the applicant to help them in getting selected in the test. He gave these roll numbers also to co-accused Pankaj Trivedi and asked him to do the needful, if possible. The applicant also transmitted roll numbers of Vishal Patel and Preetam Singh to Pankaj Trivedi and sought his help.
38. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the present applicant is passing on the roll numbers and names of certain candidates to Pankaj Trivedi, accused No.1. It is argued that even as per C.B.I. in the present case no money has been accepted or paid by the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 20 applicant either from the candidates or to the VYAPAM officials. Pankaj Trivedi, accused No.1 was the VYAPAM official and the present applicant is accused of referring the names of certain candidates to Pankaj Trivedi. It is contended that mere allegation of referring names does not amount to the person acting as middleman, because no financial transaction has even been alleged against the present applicant leave alone money trail being established. Therefore, it is contended that the case against the present applicant is based on non-existing material and surmises and conjectures and even upon the entire investigation nothing more could be established against the present applicant by the C.B.I. Therefore, the case against the present applicant deserves to be quashed.
39. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. by referring to reply has vehemently opposed the present application for quashing of the case. It is contended that the present applicant was influential person and he was in contact with many politicians of the State and had conspired with Pankaj Trivedi, who was the Principal System Analyst of VYAPAM and had also conspired with accused candidates for ensuring selections in different examinations including the present examination. On these allegations as detailed in the reply, it is prayed to dismiss the present application.
40. Upon hearing the counsel for the rival parties, it is seen that the allegations against the present applicant are summarized by the C.B.I. in the charge sheet, which is as under:-
"In the Memorandum of Dr. Sudhir Sharma (A-9) dated 26.05.2015 drawn by STF, it is mentioned that he knows Dr. Pankaj Trivedi (A-1) ever since working in Rajiv Gandhi| Prodhyogiki Vishwavidhyalaya, Bhopal (RGPV) during 2008. He was Member of the National Governing Council of the institution called 'Vigyan Bharati'. Ramshesh Sharma (A-106) requested for his help in getting 2 of his relatives Rishikesh Sharma (A-21) and. Mukesh Sharma (A-
76) selected i in the FGRT, 2013. On his instructions, Ramshesh Sharma (A-106) handed over"roll numbers of two persons viz.Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 21
Rishikesh Sharma (A-21) and Mukesh Sharma (A-76) to Dr. Pankaj Trivedi (A-1). Late Dr. Chandramani Tripati, former MP of Rewa was known to' him since both of them were in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He gave name/roll numbers of 3'candidates belonging to 'his constituency and asked him to help them in getting selected in the FGRT, 2013. He gave these roll numbers to Dr. Pankaj Trivedi (A-1) and asked him to do the needful, if possible Vishal Patel (A-57) and Pritham Singh (A-88) who used to meet at BJP office at Bhopal also requested for help in getting selected in the FGRT, 2013 and gave their roll numbers to him. He transmitted these roll numbers also to Dr. Pankaj Trivedi (A-1) and sought his help. Ashishek Narware (A-34) met him at BJP office after FGRT, 2013 examination was over and sought help in selection. He gave this roll number also to Dr. Pankaj Trivedi (A-1), though this candidate was not selected. He did not obtain or accept any money from any of these candidates.
In the memorandum of the accused middleman Ramshesh Sharma (A-106) u/s 27 IEA, corroborating facts pertaining to the accused candidates, Rishikesh Sharma (A-21) and Mukesh Sharma (A-76) are mentioned."
41. It is evident from perusal of aforesaid paragraph that the present applicant is alleged to have received recommendations of certain candidates to be introduced to Pankaj Trivedi, who was the Principal System Analyst in VYAPAM and at instance of his acquaintances and politicians of the State, the present applicant introduced/recommended their names and roll numbers to Pankaj Trivedi. Apart from that there is no other allegation against the present applicant. Most importantly, in the aforesaid paragraph it has been mentioned by the C.B.I. itself that the present applicant did not obtain or accept any money from any of the candidates.
421. The C.B.I. in the present case does not allege the present applicant of having received or paid any money from or two any person. There is no allegation that the present applicant had brokered any deal between any candidate and the VYAPAM officials, who brought about wrongful selection of the said candidates in the recruitment test.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 2243. It was contended by the C.B.I. that sufficient material has been collected in the course of investigation against the present applicant and he has brought about selection of six candidates in FGRT - 2013 in wrongful manner, whereby the OMR sheets and data was manipulated to give more marks to these candidates, then what they had actually scored in the OMR sheets. However, these allegations are only based on the memorandum of accused persons. During the course of investigation, no facts of brokering any deal or accepting or paying any money to any person could be established by the C.B.I. and on the contrary, it has been accepted by the C.B.I. in the charge sheet that there is no allegation of receipt of payment of any money against the present applicant. Therefore, it is evident that the basic ingredients of a person acting as middleman are missing in the present case against the present applicant, because he is not alleged of brokering any deal nor acceptance or payment of any money.
44. Learned counsel for the applicant seems to be right in submitting that even if the applicant has introduced some candidates to Pankaj Trivedi without any allegation of demand or acceptance of money or allegation of assurance of payment of any money or brokering any deal, then it would only be a case of usual courtesy, which is normally extended by a person when a close acquaintance approaches a person to introduce him to a person in power or position. It does not lead to any criminal proximity in the matter and the role of the present applicant in the present case is only of bringing about introduction of some persons with another person, which even if proved would not amount to criminal proximity with the crime, which has been committed by the VYAPAM official to the benefit of the candidates.
45. No ingredients of applicant being a middleman in the transaction are made out from perusal of the charge sheet and it appears that there are no Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 23 ingredients in the charge sheet which prima facie constitutes an offence on which the applicant can be put to trial.
46. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that all these four cases fall within the purview of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. This is because the allegation in material contend in the charge sheet, even if proved in the manner they are mentioned in the charge sheet are not likely to bring about conviction of the present applicant in the case. All these cases are where investigation is complete and entire material has been collected by the investigating agency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) has held as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-05-2025 10:24:25 24 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
47. In view of the above, in our opinion, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the present applicant. Consequently, the petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The FIRs and charge sheets and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom (against the present applicant only) are hereby quashed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Nks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-05-2025
10:24:25