Bombay High Court
Sayyad Hasan S/O Sayyad Nisar Ali vs State Of Mah.Thr. Ps Jaripatka Nagpur ... on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5329-DB
48apl1123.2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1123 OF 2023
APPLICANT :- Sayyad Hasan s/o Sayyad Nisar Ali,
(ON RA) Aged about 58 years, Occupation:
Teacher, R/o Plot No. 138, Teachers
Colony, Thakur Plot, Motha Tajbagh,
Nagpur, Tq. and District Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
NON- :- 1) State of Maharashtra,
APPLICANTS through Police Station Jaripatka,
Nagpur City, Nagpur Tq. and District
Nagpur.
2) Bandu s/o Sudamji Kalambe, Aged
about 48 years, Occupation: Police
Constable, Police Station, Jaripatka,
Nagpur City, Nagpur, Tq. and
District Nagpur. [In Official
capacity]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J.B. Kasat, counsel for applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE : 02/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 2
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 228 of 2019 registered by the Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur City, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at Board, University and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1982'), along with the consequent proceedings arising out of Regular Criminal Case No. 1686 of 2023, pending before the Court of 17th Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First class, Nagpur.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that the present applicant is a teacher who was appointed on 09/12/1993 in the schools run by Nagpur Municipal Corporation and was due for retire on 31/07/2023. rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 3 It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against him and he was appointed by the Maharashtra State Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board as well as Amravati Divisional Board as Moderator, Paper-setter, and Valuer, etc. for the 10th Board examinations since last many years.
5. On 12/03/2019, the FIR came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant namely Bandu Kalambe, a Police Constable. It is alleged that, in view of the secrete information, a trap was arranged by the police consisting of police staff which accosted the other co-accused Tanmay Badole. During the search operation, incriminating material such as answer sheets of English subject of 10th board examination and 12th standard of Physics and Biology examinations were seized. The documents prima-facie revealed the affixing of dummy photos of the students on the identity card, and thus the material seized from them prima- facie suggested commission of the offenses. Therefore, on the basis of the report lodged by the said police constable, the crime came to be registered against the co-accused under rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 4 Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Act, 1982.
6. During the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, it was revealed to the investigating officer that present applicant was also involved, as he was the custodian of the said center. Therefore, the present applicant was also arraigned as an accused in the said crime.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, on perusal of the entire investigation papers, except the statement of one Mohd. Nizamuddin Imtaiz Ali, only to the extent of referring the name of the present applicant, no specific role is attributed to the present applicant. On the contrary, the statement shows that he is not aware whether anybody was coming to the present applicant and he is connected with the other co-accused or not. Thus, he submitted that there is no single document or statement of witnesses which discloses any connection between the present applicant and the other co-accused.
rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 5
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to the summary of the chargesheet and submitted that, as far as the present applicant is concerned, the summary of the chargesheet only shows that the it revealed to the investigating agency that present applicant was also involved in the said crime. However, neither the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1982 is made out against the present applicant. Thus, in the absence of any prima-facie case against the present applicant, the application deserves to be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, considering the present applicant was working as a moderator of the said examination and was custodian of that center, and the alleged incident has also occurred at that center and therefore, as per the duty allotted to him, he is responsible for any misdeed committed at the said center. Therefore, a prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant, in view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 6
10. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the ingredients are required to establish the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. For the constitution of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC the essential ingredients offence of cheating described in Section 415 IPC is that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
11. Thus, to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making any promise, with an intention to retain the promise. In other words, Section 415 of the IPC, which defined cheating requires deception of any person by (i) inducing that person rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 7
(ii) to deliver any property to any person (iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property (iv) intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
12. The another offence allegedly under Section 468 of IPC. Section 468 of IPC deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. The definition of forgery is given under Section 463 with state that whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 471 deals with using the said document as a genuine one.
13. The present applicant is further prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act of 1982, which deals with prohibition of supply or publication of any question rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 8 paper before examination is held. Whoever has in his possession any question paper set or purported to be set for any examination and supplies or causes to be supplied or offers to supply a copy thereof, or communicates or offers to communicate the contents thereof, to any person, whether for any consideration or otherwise, or gives publicity thereto in any manner, except in accordance with the instructions issued in writing by an authorised officer of the University, Board or other authority concerned with the examination, at any time before the examination is held, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 7 deals with prohibition of copying and impersonating at examination. Thus, as far as Section 7 is concerned, which is applicable against the co- accused
14. Considering the entire investigation papers, it has to be seen whether the offence punishable under Section 6 is made out against the present applicant. The entire investigation papers, no where discloses that either the rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 9 present applicant was in possession of any question papers set or purported to be set for any examination and supplied or causes to be supplied or offers to supply a copy thereof, or communicates or offers to communicate the contents thereof. Thus entire FIR and the entire investigation papers silent as to the fact that the present applicant has either in possession of any question paper, which was already set or which was purported to be set or he has supplied any copy or any communication or was there any offer to communicate the said information to anyone. The FIR does not disclose even the bare ingredients of the offence alleged against the present applicant. The complainant has nowhere stated as far as the act of the present applicant is concerned.
15. During investigation, the investigation officer has recorded the relevant statements of the witness, neither the FIR nor this statement discloses that it was the present applicant was in possession of any question paper which was already set or which was purported to be set, and he has either communicated or offered anybody to supply the copy of the same. Thus, in the absence of the any material on record, rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 10 it would be difficult to say that the offence under Section 6 is made out against the present applicant.
16. As the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act of 1982, itself is absent in the present case. The careful reading of the complaint and the entire investigation paper nowhere shows that the name of the present applicant was mentioned stating that he has either parted any information with any of the co-accused or there is any communication between the present applicant and the co- accused. Therefore, the offence under Section 6 is not made out, and in the light of that, the offence under Section 420 is also not made out, as the FIR is completely silent about the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Admittedly, for constitution of the offence punishable under Section 420, intention since inception is required, which nowhere discloses from the entire investigation papers.
17. As far as the forgery is concerned, entire investigation papers, even the statement of one of the witnesses on which the prosecution relied upon i.e. Mohd. rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 11 Nizamuddin Imtaiyaz Ali, specifically states that he is unaware about the fact whether anybody was coming to the present applicant or there was any communication between him and the other co-accused. His statement only to the extent that the he knows the present applicant, who is resident of Mominpura. Except that, the said statement nowhere discloses any role attributed to the present applicant.
18. Thus, considering the absence of entire prima facie case against the present applicant, and the question would arise on what basis charge-sheet is filed by the prosecution by stating that his involvement is revealed, when the prosecution completely could not establish on what basis the investigating officer has come to the conclusion regarding the involvement of the present applicant. In view of that, prima-facie case is made out by the present applicant to show that his involvement is merely on the basis that he is serving or he was working on that center. Except his presence at the center, admittedly, there is absolutely no material collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer.
19. The parameters which are laid down by the Hon'ble rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 12 Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , which reproduced as under :-
(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 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) rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 13 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.
20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant, and therefore the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. rkn 48apl1123.2023.odt 14 ORDER a] The criminal Application is allowed. b] The FIR in connection with Crime No. 228 of 2019 registered by the Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur City, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at Board, University and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 and consequent proceedings arising out of Regular Criminal Case No. 1686 of 2023, pending before the Court of 17th Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial magistrate First class, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside against the present applicant only.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) rkn