Bombay High Court
Ganesh Shivanand Nagre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12257-DB
apl.55.2025,judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.55 OF 2025
Ganesh Shivanand Nagre,
Aged about 31 Years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Bhandari,
Tahsil Sindkhed Raja,
District Buldhana. .... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Sakharkherda,
Tahsil Sindkhed Raja,
District Buldhana.
2. Ranganath Kalyanrao Gawade,
Aged about 55 Years,
Occupation : Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Sindkhed Raja,
District Buldhana.
Presently R/o. At Post Bibi,
Tahsil Lonar, District Buldhana. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. A. P. Sadavarte, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.11.2025
JUDGMENT :(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties.
apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (2)
3. The application is preferred by the applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.89/2023 dated 06.03.2023 registered with Police Station Sakharkherda, Tahsil Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982.
4. As per the contention of the applicant, he is a Science graduate and now appeared for the post of Assistant (C & W) in the Railways Recruitment Process. The Maharashtra State Higher Secondary Board Exams were being conducted and the paper for the subject Math was scheduled to be held on 03.03.2023. The said paper was leaked by the teachers for financial benefits. When the applicant along with the other friends was sitting, he received a WhatsApp forward message which was the Maths question paper it was actually leaked by the co-accused i.e. accused No.1. After seeing the said forwarded message, he has noticed that paper of Math was leaked, he immediately called one Mayur Laxman Nikam Reporter of Channel Zee 24 and disclosed to him about leak of Math question paper. Immediately, the news was flashed and thereafter, the crime apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (3) came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by non- applicant No.2 against the unknown persons. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of various witnesses and the applicant was implicated as accused No.8. In fact, the applicant is the whistle-blower due to whom the fact of leakage of Math paper came into light. But, the Investigating Officer has arraigned him as accused without any material evidence collected against him.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the entire investigation papers only disclose that the present applicant has received the Math leaked paper, except the said allegation, there is absolutely no material to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. On the contrary, the statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam shows that he has received a phone call of the present applicant, who disclosed to him that the Math paper of 12th standard was leaked, and therefore, he flashed the news. Except this statement, there is no other material to show the involvement of the present applicant. The action of the present applicant is protected by the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, and therefore, no purpose would be served by forcing him to face the trial. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (4) SCC 335. The case of the applicant covers and FIR be quashed against him.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering the grievous allegation that the involvement of the present applicant was in the leakage of the paper, at this stage, sufficient material is there, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for the informant fairly submitted that except the statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam, there is absolutely no material to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence.
8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, the applicant is facing charge that his involvement is in the leakage of question paper of Math of 12 th standard of the year 2023. The entire investigation papers disclose that the applicant has received the WhatsApp forward which was a Math question paper, which was leaked by the original accused No.1. Thus, only allegation against the present applicant is that he received the said leaked Math paper on his WhatsApp. During the investigation, though the Investigating Officer has recorded various statements, except the allegation that he has received the leaked question paper, no other material came before the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (5) the statement of Mayur Laxman Nikam shows that he has received the phone call of the present applicant on the same day i.e. on 03.03.2023, who disclosed that the Math paper of 12 th standard was leaked and he has forwarded the said paper on his WhatsApp. He immediately flashed the said news on Zee 24 Channel and thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the unknown person. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that in fact, the applicant is a whistle-blower has substance. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was enacted to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
9. In view of the provisions of this act, the act was enacted to give adequate protection to the persons reporting corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable loss to the Government or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant or to regularize mechanism to encourage such person to disclose the information on corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (6) misuse of discretion by public servants or commission of a criminal offence. The Act further determines the procedure to inquire or cause to inquire into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of the whistle blower, that is the person making such disclosure. It also gives the safeguards against victimisation of the person reporting matters regarding the corruption by a public servant.
10. Admittedly, the investigation papers shows that it was the present applicant who disclosed the said incident first to the witness Mayur Laxman Nikam and thereafter the FIR came to be lodged, therefore, the act of the present applicant deserves to be protected in view of the provisions of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014. Forcing him to face the trial would be the abuse of the process of law.
11. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others referred supra the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the guidelines to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is reproduced for the reference.
"(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 apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (7) 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) 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 apl.55.2025,judgment.odt (8) 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."
12. In the light of the above discussion, the application of the present applicant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.89/2023 dated 06.03.2023 registered with Police Station Sakharkherda, Tahsil Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Regular Criminal Case No.175/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkhed Raja, is hereby quashed to the extent of the present applicant Ganesh Shivanand Nagre.
The application is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Sarkate.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/11/2025 11:14:47