Neeraj Malik vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Court
Allahabad High Court

1
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 11817 of 2024
Neeraj Malik
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gantavya,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.,
Judgment Reserved On: 27.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced On: 02.07.2026
A.F.R.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meha Rashmi
Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar
Shukla, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shivendra
Shivam Singh Rathore, the learned State Law Officer for the State of U.P.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant has sought quashing of a charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 submitted
in furtherance of F.I.R. No. 02/2018, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 201
I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The
applicant has also challenged the validity of the order dated 15.07.2021
passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI (Central),
Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 336/2021, taking cognizance of the
aforesaid offences and the entire proceedings of the criminal case instituted
on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, have also been challenged through
this petition.

2
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
3. The Inspector-in-charge of Special Investigation Team, UP (SIT) had
lodged the aforesaid FIR on 25.04.2018 against- (i) Mohd. Azam Khan, the
then Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam; (ii) Syed Aafaak Ahmed, the then Officer on
Special Duty, U.P. Jal Nigam, (iii) Prakash Singh, the then Secretary, Urban
Development, Government of U.P., (iv) P. K. Asudani, the then Managing
Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, (v) Anil Kumar Khare, the then Chief Engineer,
U.P. Jal Nigam and unnamed officers and employees of Jal Nigam and
unnamed representatives of M/s Aptech Ltd., who were involved in the
recruitment process and some unspecified other persons, stating that Sri Ram
Sevak Shukla, retired Executive Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam had given a
complaint dated 22.03.2017 in furtherance of which, the State Government
had issued a letter dated 13.07.2017 directing an inquiry to be conducted by
the SIT regarding irregular appointments made on 1,300 posts in Jal Nigam.
4. The complainant Inspector-in-charge SIT had conducted an inquiry and
had submitted a report to the Government on 28.03.2018. The inquiry
revealed that Notifications were issued on 19.11.2016 for making
recruitments on the posts of Assistant Engineers, on 28.10.2016 for the posts
of Junior Engineers and on 18.06.2016 for the posts of clerks and
stenographers. The total posts advertised were 1,300 and the applications
and examination fee were to be submitted online.
5. The inquiry report states that the Chairman, Jal Nigam had granted
approval to selection of M/s Aptech Ltd. for conducting the recruitment
examination, although he had got no authority for the same as Section 7(3)
of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 does not confer any
managerial rights upon the Chairman of U.P. Jal Nigam. The Act does not
contemplate appointment of any Officer on Special Duty. Section 8 of the
Act confers power of recruitment on the Board of Jal Nigam. The Managing
Director of Jal Nigam did not put the matter of recruitment before the Board
of Jal Nigam and he forwarded it directly to OSD/Chairman, without
obtaining sanction from the Board or the State Government. There are only
nine sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer (electrical/mechanical) but
approval was granted for making appointment of candidates possessing

3
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
Computer Science/ Electrical/ Electronic Engineering degrees on four posts
although these posts were not sanctioned by the Government. The Managing
Director and Chairman of Jal Nigam do not have the authority to convert the
posts.
6. The inquiry report also stated that interview of candidates for
stenographers was arbitrarily canceled by the Chairman, Jal Nigam by
means of an order dated 20.12.2016, thereby causing a loss of Rs.
37,50,000/- to the Government Exchequer. One of the conditions of the
agreement between Jal Nigam and M/s Aptech Limited, was that
immediately after completion of the examinations, the answer keys would be
displayed, but it was not done. When the candidates demanded the answer
keys under the Right to Information Act, it was uploaded on the website of
Jal Nigam on 28.02.2017, two months after the examination, due to which
the discrepancies in the answer keys and the response sheets could not be
highlighted within time and the candidates could not get opportunity to file
their objections. The result was declared on 03.01.2017, appointment letters
were issued and the appointed candidates were permitted to join the duties
on the same date.
7. 43 representations were sent to U.P. Jal Nigam raising objections against
the questions and answers after the answer keys and the response sheets
were uploaded on the website. In the report submitted by Aptech Ltd.
22.07.2017, it was admitted that seven questions asked in the examination
for making appointments of Assistant Engineer and the answers of 20
questions were incorrect. Even after the aforesaid fact coming to his
knowledge, the Managing Director did not correct the result and under a
conspiracy with M/s Aptech Ltd., the primary data of the examination saved
on the cloud server, was deleted.
8. The Inquiry report further stated that it was brought to the knowledge of
the High Court through various petitions that the appointments were void ab
initio . Candidates who had obtained lesser marks in Computer Based Test
(CBT) were awarded maximum marks i.e. 90% in interview whereas the
candidates who were awarded the highest marks in CBT were awarded 58%

4
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
marks in interview and were declared unsuccessful. The entire recruitment
process was conducted in an irregular and arbitrary manner, under a criminal
conspiracy. Admission of M/s Aptech Ltd. regarding error in 27
questions/answers prima facie established commission of criminal acts by all
the officers and other persons involved in the recruitment process.
9. The inquiry report further stated that four candidates selected on the post
of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) had given identical 58 correct
answers and 22 wrong answers in response to 80 questions. 58 correct
answers being the same is natural but 22 wrong answers being the same is
not a natural thing. It shows that the responsible officers of U.P. Jal Nigam
and the representatives of M/s Aptech Ltd. had committed the offence in
connivance with each other. Interviews for the post of Assistant Engineer
were conducted on 30.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 and the result was declared
on 03.01.2017, appointment letters were issued on the same date, joining
was also done on the same date.
10. The inquiry report further stated that 6 questions and 16 answers of
questions in the Computer Based Test conducted for making selections to the
post of Junior Engineer (Civil and Electrical/Mechanical) are wrong. It
shows that the accused persons did not prepare a correct merit list and
benefited ineligible candidates. The evidence collected during inquiry
revealed that the then Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, other officers,
Officer-on-Special Duty, Secretary, Urban Development and Chairman, Jal
Nigam abused their official positions and conducted the recruitment process
in an irregular/illegal manner, in violation of the rules under a conspiracy
with the representatives of M/s Aptech Ltd. and the primary data of the
examination was deleted from the cloud server thereby destroying valuable
evidence.
11. After investigation, initially a charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 was
submitted against four accused persons- (i) Anil Kumar Khare, (ii) Bhavesh
Jain, (iii) Aftab M. Khan and (iv) Hemant Kandpal.

5
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
12. A copy of the applicant’s statement recorded by the Investigating Officer
on 11.09.2019 has been annexed with the counter affidavit, which shows that
the applicant had stated that at the time of recording the statement, he was
working as Chief Business Officer of M/s Aptech Ltd. and at the time of the
recruitment in question, he was working as Executive Vice President of the
company. It was his responsibility to provide training services, business
development solutions, engineering, infrastructure, management, content
services, finance and operations to the Government and private
organizations both within the country and outside the country. He was
authorized to execute the agreement for conducting the examination in the
recruitment process in question on behalf of M/s Aptech Ltd. He had
performed the obligations under the contract through his subordinate
employees and he had supervised the entire recruitment process. The
Investigating Officer had put a question as to when was the contract
executed and the applicant answered that it was executed on 15.12.2016.
The Investigating Officer pointed out that the applicant had signed the
contract on 13.12.2016 in response to which the applicant stated that he
would have inadvertently mentioned the date as 13.12.2016 but the contract
was in fact executed on 15.12.2016. The applicant further stated that
guidance was sought from Anil Kumar Khare, Chief Engineer, Jal Nigam
and P.K. Asudani, Managing Director, Jal Nigam to upload the answer key
whereupon oral instructions were issued for not uploading the answer key
and for making the examination results available and letters were also
received from U.P. Jal Nigam in this regard. In response to another question,
the applicant stated that he had ensured transparency in the examination
process and no candidate had made any complaint to M/s Aptech Ltd.
13. The Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary charge sheet dated
24.05.2021 against (1) Mohammad Azam Khan, (2) Girish Chandra, (3)
Neeraj Malik (the applicant) and (4) Vishwajeet Singh, in which the
allegations against the applicant and co-accused Mohammad Azam Khan are
regarding commission of the offences under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C. read with Sections 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of the Prevention

6
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
of Corruption Act, 1988. He surrendered before the trial court in October,
2021 and he was enlarged on bail on the same day.
14. It has been pleaded in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that on
19.05.2016, Jal Nigam had selected M/s Aptech Ltd. for conducting the
examination and the first work order was issued on 19.05.2016. The
applicant joined M/s Aptech Ltd. on 01.06.2016. The applicant was not even
employed in M/s Aptech Ltd. when Jal Nigam had selected the company to
conduct the examination. The applicant had no interaction with any official
of the Jal Nigam and he was not a part of the sales team which had secured
the contract for the company. Thereafter, contracts between Jal Nigam and
M/s Aptech Ltd. were executed on 17.06.2014, 28.10.2016 and 15.12.2016.
The applicant further claims that when the examination in question was
conducted, the applicant had just joined M/s Aptech Ltd. and his induction
process was going on and he was still on probation. The applicant was
remotely supervising administrative activities of the company. The applicant
has further claimed that he has never worked at Lucknow. His role is
confined to sales and business development and he had no role in software
development, setting the question papers, tabulation of scores, preparation of
merit list etc. and he did not have access to either the question papers or the
result of the examination or the marks awarded to the candidates, which
were confidential documents/information stored in password protected files
with strict access controls. The applicant had no role in running the
Information Technology Department or the company’s data centers. He had
no interaction with the officials of Jal Nigam or any candidate appearing in
the examination. The applicant had no role, whatsoever, in the conduct of
examinations on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam.
15. It has also been pleaded in the petition that Jal Nigam had issued the
appointment letters on 03.01.2017 and the applicant or M/s Aptech Ltd. had
no role to play in issuance of the appointment letters. On 11.08.2017, Jal
Nigam canceled all the 1,300 appointments made in the recruitment process
in question. The cancellation order was challenged and the same was
dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Ajit

7
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
Singh Patel v. State of U.P. : 2018 (1) ADJ 166, wherein this High Court has
held that no irregularity, fraud or malpractice was committed in the selection
process and it was directed that the Jal Nigam should correct the minor
discrepancies, if any, rather than canceling the entire process. This judgment
was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Ajit
Singh Patel : (2019) 12 SCC 285.
16. After submission of the SIT report, the Jal Nigam again canceled the
appointments by means of an order dated 02.03.2020. This order was
challenged by filing Writ A No. 7076 of 2021 and other connected matters in
this Court. The writ petitions were allowed by means of an order dated
04.10.2024 holding that no ground existed for cancellation of the selections
and on the basis of material mentioned in the SIT report, it cannot be said
that there was any irregularity committed in conducting the computer based
test or that there was any large scale conspiracy or fraud in the selections.
This court upheld the validity of the selection process and directed Jal
Nigam to reappoint the untainted candidates in accordance with the result
prepared by M/s Aptech Limited.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla has
raised a preliminary objection that this is the second petition filed by the
applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Earlier, the applicant had filed
Application U/S 482 No. 6538 of 2022 and it was dismissed as withdrawn
by means of an order dated 13.12.2022. He has submitted that the aforesaid
first petition having been dismissed, another petition seeking the same relief
of quashing of proceedings against the accused is not maintainable. In
support of his objection, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2024) 15 SCC 282, wherein it has been held that a second petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable on the grounds that were available for
challenge at the time of filing of the first petition. The learned Additional
Advocate General has also submitted that the trial has already commenced
and this Court should refrain from entertaining the petition at this stage.

8
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
18. In response to this objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that a second petition filed after change of circumstances and on
fresh grounds which have arisen on account of the judgment and order dated
04.10.2024 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 7076 of 2021, is
maintainable. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Anil Khadkiwala
v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : (2019) 17 SCC 294. The
learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the first petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn and it was not
decided on merits. Therefore, this petition is not barred in view of the law
laid down in the cases of Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
& Ors .:Crl. Appeal No. 552 of 2022 decided on 04.04.2022 and Devendra
& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2009) 7 SCC 495.
19. It is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection against
maintainability of the second application before proceeding to examine the
merits of the case.
20. In this regard, Sri. Ashok Kumar Shukla, the learned Additional
Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. : (2024) 15 SCC
282. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to an earlier
decision in the case of State of W.B. v. Mohan Singh : (1975) 3 SCC 706,
wherein it was held that entertainment of the second petition is permissible
where the circumstances existing at the time of the subsequent petition were
different from what they were at the time of the earlier one. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. (supra) that
there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC
would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the individual case. The Supreme Court held that it is not
open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482CrPC, though all such pleas
were very much available even at the first instance.

9
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
21. In Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2019) 17 SCC 294, a
complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 against the appellant who was the Director of a Company, alleging that
the appellant had issued the cheques, which were dishonored upon
presentation. The appellant filed a petition for quashing the complaint
pleading that he had already resigned from the Company. However, the
appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of this contention. The
application was dismissed solely on the ground that the cheques were issued
under the signature of the appellant. The appellant then preferred a fresh
application under Section 482 annexing therewith Form 32 issued by the
Registrar of Companies in proof of resignation by the appellant prior to the
issuance of the cheques. The High Court dismissed the petition. Allowing
the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -
7.  … the appellant had taken a specific objection in his earlier
application under Section 482 CrPC that he had resigned from the
Company on 20-1-2001 and which had been accepted. From the tenor of
the order of the High Court on the earlier occasion it does not appear
that Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies was brought on
record in support of the resignation. The High Court dismissed the
quashing application without considering the contention of the appellant
that he had resigned from the post of the Director of the Company prior
to the issuance of the cheques and the effect thereof in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The High Court in the fresh application under
Section 482 CrPC initially was therefore satisfied to issue notice in the
matter after noticing the Form 32 certificate. Naturally there was a
difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one,
inasmuch as the statutory Form 32 did not fall for consideration by the
Court earlier. The factum of resignation is not in dispute between the
parties. The subsequent application, strictly speaking, therefore cannot
be said to a repeat application squarely on the same facts and
circumstances.
8.  In Mohan Singh [Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan
Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706], it was held that a successive application
under Section 482 CrPC under changed circumstances was
maintainable and the dismissal of the earlier application was no bar to
the same, observing:
“2. … Here, the situation is wholly different. The earlier application
which was rejected by the High Court was an application under Section
561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceeding and the
High Court rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet to be led

10
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
and it was not desirable to interfere with the proceeding at that stage.
But, thereafter, the criminal case dragged on for a period of about one-
and-a-half years without any progress at all and it was in these
circumstances that Respondents 1 and 2 were constrained to make a
fresh application to the High Court under Section 561-A to quash the
proceeding. It is difficult to see how in these circumstances, it could ever
be contended that what the High Court was being asked to do by making
the subsequent application was to review or revise the order made by it
on the earlier application. Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of
the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of
the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice and the High
Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the
circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of
Respondents 1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and
circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against
the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its
quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The facts and
circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application of
Respondents 1 and 2 were clearly different from what they were at the
time of the earlier application of the first respondent because, despite the
rejection of the earlier application of the first respondent, the
prosecution had failed to make any progress in the criminal case even
though it was filed as far back as 1965 and the criminal case rested
where it was for a period of over one-and-a-half years.”
22. In the present case, the allegations against the appellant are that he was
responsible to ensure execution of the recruitment examination and the
answer keys were not published immediately after the examination, under a
criminal conspiracy to fabricate the marks obtained by 169 ineligible
candidates thereby ensuring their selection, which has resulted in deserving
candidates being deprived of their rightful selection. The applicant had
earlier filed Application U/S 482 No. 6538 of 2022, which was dismissed as
withdrawn by means of an order dated 13.12.2022 and it was not decided on
merits. Subsequently, After submission of the SIT report, the Jal Nigam
again canceled the appointments by means of an order dated 02.03.2020.
This order was challenged by filing Writ A No. 7076 of 2021 and other
connected matters in this Court. The writ petitions were allowed by means of
an order dated 04.10.2024 holding that on the basis of material mentioned in
the SIT report, it cannot be said that there was any irregularity committed in

11
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
conducting the computer based test or that there was any large scale
conspiracy or fraud in the selections. This court upheld the validity of the
selection process and directed Jal Nigam to reappoint the untainted
candidates in accordance with the result prepared by M/s Aptech Limited.
23. The aforesaid subsequent finding recorded by this High Court that it
cannot be said that there was any irregularity committed in conducting the
computer based test or that there was any large scale conspiracy or fraud in
the selections, certainly gives a ground to the applicant to challenge the
criminal proceedings against him on the same set of allegations, as per the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supt. and Remembrancer
of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh : (1975) 3 SCC 706 and followed in Anil
Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2019) 17 SCC 294.
24. Even as per the law laid down in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. :
(supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General,
entertainment of the second petition is permissible where the circumstances
existing at the time of the subsequent petition were different from what they
were at the time of the earlier one. Therefore, the preliminary objection
raised by the learned Additional Advocate General against maintainability of
the second petition filed on new grounds, which accrued after dismissal of
the first petition as not maintainable and not on merits, is misconceived and
the same is turned down.
25. Substantially the SIT inquiry report levels the following allegations:-
a. Aptech was required to publish the Answer Key but it failed to do so.
Hence, Aptech breached the contract and connived with the officers of the
Jal Nigam, as a consequence whereof the candidates did not get an
opportunity to submit their objections against the question papers.
b. Aptech deleted the primary data of the examination from the cloud server
and thus destroyed valuable evidence, under a criminal conspiracy with Jal
Nigam.

12
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
c. Marks of 169 candidates were increased for unfair gains, as a consequence
whereof ineligible candidates were selected and eligible candidates were
deprived of selection.
26. The applicant has submitted that he had no role in or concerned with the
process of preparation or publication of answer keys. Question papers and
answer keys in any examination are prepared by third party subject matter
experts comprising of renowned professors and teachers and the same are
published by the infrastructure team of the company, if instructed by the
client. The applicant is neither a subject matter expert nor a part of any team
of the company which was involved in the process of publication of answer
keys. Regarding non-publication of answer keys, the applicant claims that it
was done pursuant to specific instructions of Jal Nigam, which Aptech and
its employees were contractually bound to follow. It does not amount to
committing any offence.
27. The applicant has further pleaded that there is no allegation of any prior
meeting of minds between the applicant and the officials of the Jal Nigam
and no quid pro quo has been established. There is no material indicating
that the applicant has acted mala fide against the Jal Nigam or any
unsuccessful candidate or that the applicant had extended any undue favour
to any candidate for gaining any undue benefit. As soon as Jal Nigam
demanded the answer keys after certain candidates had sought information
under the Right to Information Act, Aptech Ltd. had provided the answer
keys in a CD-Rom to Jal Nigam. Thereafter, the Jal Nigam instructed Aptech
Ltd. to publish the answer keys and it was also done promptly.
28. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.10.2024
passed by this Court in Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. : Writ A No. 7076 of
2021, wherein this Court has held that there was only a minuscule number of
wrong questions and answers which are bound to creep-in in a multiple
choice question format question paper and they cannot be said to have
vitiated the examination process. This Court has further held that Aptech
was not involved in the process of preparation of question papers/answer
keys which were prepared by third party subject matter experts and Aptech

13
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
has revised the results and identified the candidates who should not have
been called for interview. Therefore, the allegation of conspiracy between
the company and Jal Nigam does not appeal to reason.
29. Regarding the third allegation that marks of 169 candidates have been
increased to give benefit to ineligible candidates, it has been submitted that
there is not even an iota of evidence linking the applicant to the allegation,
who was not a part of the result processing team and who did not have
access to the marks of the candidates and had no role, whatsoever in actual
tabulation of marks of the candidates or preparation of the results. After
conclusion of the computer based test, the result was prepared by the result
processing team of the company and the same was handed over in control
and custody of the officials of the Jal Nigam in a password protected secured
file. There is no allegation of any irregularity having been committed or
manipulation having taken place till conclusion of CBT. In this regard also,
the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed
by this Court in Writ A No. 7076 of 2021, wherein it has been held that the
CFSL report does not record any finding that the data retrieved from the
hard disk seized from the office of local environment of Aptech had been
manipulated or modified. This Court has held that Aptech had followed all
security measures and handed over the result to Jal Nigam officials in
password protected secured files with login ID. Manipulation, if any, crept in
after the result had been handed over to Jal Nigam and Aptech was not
involved in this process. The CFSL has not found the record maintained by
Aptech as having been tampered with. The applicant has submitted that there
is absolutely no specific allegation of commission of any act by the applicant
which may amount to commission of any offence and, therefore, he cannot
be made to face trial without any basis.
30. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition, wherein it
has inter alia been stated that the applicant was responsible to ensure
execution of the recruitment examination and the answer keys were not
published immediately after the examination, under a criminal conspiracy to
fabricate the marks obtained by 169 ineligible candidates thereby ensuring

14
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
their selection, which has resulted in deserving candidates being deprived of
their rightful selection. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that
this Court has observed in the order dated 04.10.2024 passed in Writ A No.
7076 of 2021 that the examination was conducted under the supervision of
the accused persons who continued with the recruitment process despite the
answer key having not been published online immediately after the
examination. This establishes collusion between Jal Nigam and Aptech Ltd.
31. The counter affidavit further states that this Court had framed the
following issue in the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in Writ A No. 7076
of 2021: -
“Whether the material discussed in the orders impugned were cogent
enough to reach out to a conclusion that entire selection process in
respect of vacancies of AE/JE/RGC in question was so much
compromised that there left no possibility to segregate tainted from
untainted candidates, and therefore, taking a holistic view of the matter,
it became imperative to cancel the entire selections and appointments
made in respect of those very posts.”
32. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the findings returned in
respect of the issue framed is solely based on the CFSL Report obtained
during the investigation which has established beyond reasonable doubt the
culpability and the prosecution case.
33. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant inter alia
stating that a co-accused Bhavesh Jain, who was working as a Software
Engineer in Aptech Ltd., had filed Application U/S 482 No. 2235 of 2022
challenging the validity of the charge-sheet, the summoning order and the
entire pending proceeding against him. The petition has been allowed by
means of a judgment and order dated 02.06.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the entire proceedings against Bhavesh Jain have
been quashed. The aforesaid judgment dated 02.06.2022 was challenged by
filing S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6827 of 2022 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has dismissed the SLP by means of the following order dated 16.09.2025: -
“1. Since the High Court has given elaborate reasoning as to why it found
no case to be made out against the respondent-accused herein, we find no
reason to interfere with those findings.

15
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
2. However, the said findings will have no bearing on the cases of the other
accused, which will be independently considered by the trial Judge during
trial or in respect of application(s)/petition(s) filed by other accused
persons seeking discharge or quashing.
3. Needles to state that any application/petition by the State for quashing or
discharge will be considered by the High Court or the Trial Court on the
basis of availability or non-availability of material against the concerned
accused.
4. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
34. The State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit sworn by an
Additional Superintendent of Police, EOW (SIT) U.P., Lucknow stating that
the applicant was involved right from the inception of the selection process
and he has actively participated in commission of the offence knowing fully
and having been aware of the fact that increasing marks will amount to
tampering of the result, which in itself is forgery and fabrication of the
valuable security. It has been stated that the applicant’s case is different from
that of co-accused Bhavesh Jain who was Manager Software Development
and was responsible for development of software for Jal Nigam Project
whereas the applicant is Executive Vice President and he was responsible for
the delivery of the entire project.
35. Challenging the proceedings against the applicant, the learned counsel
for the applicant has further submitted that CFSL report does not record any
finding that the data recovered from the Aptech was manipulated or had
been modified. The marks of 169 candidates were inflated by Jal Nigam and
not by Aptech as Aptech has not been found to have committed any
tampering in the marks recorded in the original database.
36. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment
in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone
Ltd .: (2022) 15 SCC 430 and Narendra Kumar v. State of Karnataka :
2022 INSC 301, wherein it has been held that a senior employee of a
company cannot be made an accused, without any specific allegation and
specific role attributed to him.

16
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
37. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied on a judgment in
the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI : (2015) 4 SCC 609, wherein it has
been held that when a company is accused, its directors can be roped in only
if (a) there is sufficient incriminating evidence against them coupled with
criminal intent or (b) the statutory regime attracts the doctrine of vicarious
liability. He has submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the
applicant and, prima facie, there is no incriminating material against the
applicant.
38. The learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted since there is
no material on record against the applicant, exercise of inherent powers of
this Court in his favour under Section 482 is justified. In support of this
contention he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy : AIR 1977 SC 1489, where it has
been held that where the High Court comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed, in
such a case the Court is entitled to quash the proceedings in exercise of its
inherent powers.
39. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelu
Chopra v. Bharti : (2009) 10 SCC 184, the learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the particulars of the offence committed by each and
every accused and role of the accused must be clearly demonstrated in the
charge-sheet, which has not been done in the present case.
40. The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that when no
specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant, he cannot be tried
on the basis of vague and bald allegations and in support of this submission
the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mirza Iqbal v. State of U.P. : AIR 2022 SC
69, wherein it has been held that where the contents of the FIR do not
disclose specific allegations against the accused and the case appears to be a
case of over implication aimed at settling scores then such a proceeding

17
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
being an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court will be justified in
quashing it.
41. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh and Others : (2023) 18 SCC 399, Manik B. v.
Kadapala Sreyas Reddy and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2540,
Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. V. State of UP and Anr : Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 2953 of 2023, Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand and Another : (2025) 1 SCC 392, State of Odisha v. Nirjharini
Patnaik and Anr. : 2024 SCC Online SC 657, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr : (2019) 18 SCC 19 and C.B.I. v.
Arvind Khanna : (2019) 10 SCC 686, the learned counsel for the respondent
has submitted that while exercising the power of quashing under Section 482
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court must not conduct a
mini trial. The scope of inquiry at this stage being limited, the correctness of
all the allegations and defenses thereto ought not to be considered at this
stage and proceedings at such stage may be quashed only where no case at
its face value is made out against the accused. He has submitted that inherent
powers under Section 482 ought to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down by the Section itself.
42. It is correct that the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial at the stage of
examining the validity of the charge-sheet by conducting a detailed scrutiny
of the probative value of the prosecution material, but it is equally correct
that the Court has to examine whether the allegations against the applicant
and the material relied upon by the prosecution in support of the charges
makes out a case for trial of the applicant. The scope of interference in a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in the
following passage: -
“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

18
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given 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 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.”
43. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI : (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down the following principles regarding scope of inquiry at the
time of framing charges and while considering a request for discharge: -
“21.  On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227
and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

19
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges
under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court
will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an
opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the
court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and
must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if
the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that
initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even
if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
44. The aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sajjan Kumar (supra) regarding scope of scrutiny by the trial Court
at the time of considering an application for discharge or framing charges,
can also be taken as guiding principles for the High Court while considering
a request for quashing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings based
thereon. Therefore, this Court can sift and weigh the prosecution evidence,
without conducting a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter by
assessing the probative value of the evidence on record, for the limited

20
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
purpose of finding out whether or not the uncontroverted allegations levelled
in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the applicant. This
Court can certainly evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence,
as it cannot be expected even at this stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
45. Therefore, I proceed to examine the prosecution allegations and the
material in support thereof to examine whether the same make out a case for
trial of the applicant for the offences under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C. read with Sections 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is made out.
46. Section 201 IPC reads as follows: -
“ 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screen offender - Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening
the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be
false,
if a capital offence .—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to
have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life .—and if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may
extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment .—and if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to
ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description
provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part
of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.

21
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
Illustration
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the
intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment
of either description for seven years, and also to fine.”
47. The allegation to attract this offence is that Aptech has deleted the
primary data of the examination from the cloud server and thus destroyed
valuable evidence, under a criminal conspiracy with Jal Nigam. The charge-
sheet does not specify the role of the applicant in removal of the primary
data from the cloud server. The applicant has pleaded that he was not
concerned with the storage of data and he did not have access to / control of
the computer systems or computer network where the data of the
examination is stored. It has further been stated that the original data has not
been deleted and continues to be stored in the archives of the company in
hard disks in its original format, under strict access control. This was
informed to SIT but SIT never bothered to collect the data and filed the
charge-sheet in ignorance of the aforesaid fact.
48. When the primary data has not been deleted and it has merely been
shifted from the cloud server to the archives of the company, it cannot be
said that the evidence of the commission of the alleged offences has been
made to disappear and the offence under Section 201 IPC is not made out.
49. The applicant has justified shifting of the data from the cloud server to
the company’s archives by pleading that Clause 10 of the Data Retention
Policy of Aptech dated 21.01.2015 (on the basis of which ISO: 27001
certification has been granted to the company) provides that any data
pertaining to an examination conducted by the company has to be stored on
the primary data center for a period of 30 days. This primary data center is
on the ‘cloud’ and is owned by a company called ‘Ctrl-S’ which is one of the
best data centers in the country with a ‘Tier-IV Certification’ and which
provides data retention facility to many companies, including Aptech. After
30 days, the data gets shifted to the secondary data center, a Tier-III data
center (which in this case was ‘Net Magic’, located at Noida) for a period of
six months. Thereafter, the data moves to the Archives of Aptech, which is
maintained at its Data Center at Noida, where it is ultimately stored in

22
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
various physical storage devices, i.e. hard disks/NAS (a cluster of hard
disks). This ‘original data’ is untampered and contains the complete audit
trail/logs, individual mouse clicks of the candidates and candidate wise/
center wise response logs.
50. In the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in Writ A No. 7076 of 2021,
this Court has held that the company has not breached the contract in any
manner by shifting the primary data from the cloud in accordance with its
Data Retention Policy, as there was no obligation under the contract to save
the data on the cloud alone. The primary data continues to be stored in the
archival server of the company and it was always available to the
investigating agency.
51. Therefore, no case for trial of the applicant for the offence under Section
201 IPC is made out.
52. Sections 420 IPC reads as follows: -
“ 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. -
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
53. The offence of cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC as follows: -
“415. Cheating - 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”.
Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the
meaning of this section.
Illustrations
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally
deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit
goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

23
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally
deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain
celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay
for the article. A cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally
deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample,
and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the
article. A cheats.
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with
which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be
dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not
diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
lend money. A cheats.
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any
money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend
him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver
to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to
deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the
faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the
money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his
contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a
civil action for breach of contract.”
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's
part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of
such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same
to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance
to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.”
54. There is absolutely no allegation against the applicant and there is no
material which may establish that the applicant has by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any
person, or he has intentionally induced 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 that the applicant’s act or omission has caused or was likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

24
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out against
the applicant.
55. Sections 467 and 468 IPC provide as follows: -
“467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc. Whoever forges a document
which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to
adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make
or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or
dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property,
or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or
receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or
receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits forgery,
intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for
the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
56. Section 120-B IPC contains punishment for criminal conspiracy, which
is defined in Section 120-A as follows: -
“120-A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy - When two or more persons
agree to do, or cause to be done,—
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence
shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the
agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.”
57. There is no allegation that the applicant had forged any document, more
particularly, a document of the categories mentioned in Section 467 I.P.C,
namely a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an
authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to
make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or

25
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or
valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
58. The prosecution has failed to specify the role played by the applicant in
the process of preparation or publication of answer keys. Question papers
and answer keys were prepared by third party subject matter experts
comprising of renowned professors and teachers. The applicant is neither a
subject matter expert nor a part of any team of the company which was
involved in the process of publication of answer keys. The applicant claims
that answer-keys were not published promptly pursuant to specific
instructions of Jal Nigam, which Aptech and its employees were
contractually bound to follow. In any case, the delayed publication of
answer-keys does not make out commission of offences under Sections 420,
477, 468 and 471 IPC.
59. Further, there is no allegation of any prior meeting of minds between the
applicant and the officials of the Jal Nigam and no quid pro quo has been
established. There is no material indicating that the applicant has acted mala
fide against the Jal Nigam or any unsuccessful candidate or that the applicant
had extended any undue favour to any candidate for gaining any undue
benefit. Therefore, the offence of criminal conspiracy is also not made out.
60. In the judgment dated dated 04.10.2024 passed in Writ A No. 7076 of
2021 Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. , this Court has held that there was
only a minuscule number of wrong questions and answers which are bound
to creep-in in a multiple choice question format question paper and they
cannot be said to have vitiated the examination process. This Court has
further held that Aptech was not involved in the process of preparation of
question papers/answer keys which were prepared by third party subject
matter experts and Aptech has revised the results and identified the
candidates who should not have been called for interview. Therefore, the
allegation of conspiracy between the company and Jal Nigam does not

26
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
appeal to reason. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced
below: -
“326. From the perusal of the entire report of the SIT, I have found that
the Special Investigation Team has broadly discussed the doubtful
questions and doubtful answers in its report on the basis of challenges
made to the questions and answers by the different candidates after the
master answer key and response sheet were published. The Special
Investigation Team has arrived at this conclusion that this was the duty
of the M/s Aptech Ltd. to prepare the questions papers as well as to
provide the answers in the master answer key for its final verification.
After the response sheets were published, the challenges that were laid to
various questions and answers and the revised result that was prepared
by M/s Aptech Ltd was sufficient to demonstrate that the agency failed to
perform its duty properly and as a matter of fact these wrong questions
and wrong answers resulted in calling for undeserving candidates for
interview and placing them in the select list. This according to SIT was
also a result of conspiracy that was hatched by the then senior Minister
who happened to be the Chairman of the corporation in connivance with
officials in the upper echelons of the corporation and with those of M/s
Aptech Ltd.
327. This above finding merely on the basis of the revised result cannot
be sustained for the simple reason that only a very few number of
questions and answers were found to be doubtful. It is true that the
result came to be revised and, therefore, candidates stood identified
who in fact should not have been called for interview and yet were
called but this is nothing exceptional. In any examination which is a
competitive in nature in which the papers are prepared on the format
of multiple choice questions, some questions and some answers are
bound to fall in doubtful category. This is also apparent from the
report submitted by the service provider agency in which 19 answers in
respect of certain questions were still doubtful as two experts had given
two different options to be the correct answers of same questions .
*
331. Thus, there is only a very minuscule percentage or number of
doubtful questions and doubtful answers and this cannot be said to be
sufficient ground itself to hold that the entire selection process insofar
as conduct of CBT is concerned was compromised .
332. Still further, M/s Aptech Ltd. has taken its clear stand taken before
the Court that the agency itself outsourced preparation of questions to a
third party/ persons who are experts in their field and, therefore, M/s
Aptech Ltd. did not have expertise to evaluate the questions and answers
for every questions asked and answers given by the said experts and it is
all further put to test by way of notification for the experts of the

27
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
concerned subject when the challenges are made. Therefore, to come to
the conclusion and hold that there was a conspiracy by the Minister
concerned and the M/s Aptech Ltd. was a part of it in preparing
question papers and answers to benefit poorer candidates does not
appeal to reason in the given facts and circumstances of the case .”
(Emphasis added)
61. The accused applicant is relying upon the findings recorded in the
aforesaid judgment of this Court.
62. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1947, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines to be
followed while examining the prayer for quashing of the proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The relevant passage of the judgment is being
reproduced below: -
“20.  The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a
prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:—
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would
rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual
assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the
factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has
not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an
abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of
the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings,
in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such
exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a
trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

28
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
[(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of
2013)]
63. The judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) has
been followed in Sajal Bose v. State of W.B. : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 525.
64. Undoubtedly, a judgment of the High Court recording findings that there
is only a very minuscule percentage or number of doubtful questions and
doubtful answers and this cannot be said to be sufficient ground itself to hold
that the entire selection process insofar as conduct of the CBT is concerned
was compromised and that it cannot be held that there was a conspiracy by
the Minister concerned and M/s Aptech Ltd. was a part of it in preparing
question papers and answers to benefit poorer candidates, is a material of
sterling and impeccable quality. The aforesaid findings recorded by this
Court rule out the charges levelled against the applicant that there was a
conspiracy in holding the recruitment examination and the applicant was a
part of it. The State / CBI have not refuted the aforesaid findings recorded by
this Court. In these circumstances, proceeding with the trial would result in
an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.
65. Regarding the third allegation that marks of 169 candidates have been
increased to give benefit to ineligible candidates, there is not even an iota of
evidence linking the applicant to the allegation, who was not a part of the
result processing team and who did not have access to the marks of the
candidates and had no role, whatsoever in actual tabulation of marks of the
candidates or preparation of the results. There is no allegation of any
irregularity having been committed or manipulation having taken place till
conclusion of CBT. In the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by this Court
in Writ A No. 7076 of 2021, it has been held that the CFSL report does not
record any finding that the data retrieved from the hard disk seized from the
office of local environment of Aptech had been manipulated or modified.
This Court has held that Aptech had followed all security measures and
handed over the result to Jal Nigam officials in password protected secured
files with login ID. Manipulation, if any, crept in after the result had been
handed over to Jal Nigam and Aptech was not involved in this process. The

29
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
CFSL has not found the record maintained by Aptech as having been
tampered with.
66. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the
applicant was responsible to ensure execution of the recruitment
examination and the answer keys were not published immediately after the
examination, under a criminal conspiracy to fabricate the marks obtained by
169 ineligible candidates thereby ensuring their selection, which has resulted
in deserving candidates being deprived of their rightful selection, without
specifying the role of the acts of the applicant which may make out
commission of any offence by him.
67. As there is absolutely no specific allegation of commission of any act by
the applicant which may amount to commission of any offence and there is
no material prima facie establishing commission of any offence by the
applicant, the applicant cannot be made to face the trial and the continuance
of trial of the applicant in these circumstances would be an abuse of the
process of law. It would result in the unwarranted persecution of the
applicant, which would cause a failure of justice to the applicant.
68. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the
charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 submitted against the applicant for offences
under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120-B
I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, in Case
Crime No. 2 of 2018, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow, the order dated
15.07.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI
(Central), Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 336/2021, taking cognizance of
the aforesaid offences and the entire proceedings of the criminal case
instituted on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet against the applicant, are
liable to be quashed.
69. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The
charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 submitted against the applicant for offences
under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120-B
I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, in Case
Crime No. 2 of 2018, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow, the order dated

30
A482 No. - 11817 of 2024
15.07.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI
(Central), Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 336/2021, taking cognizance of
the aforesaid offences and the entire proceedings of the criminal case
instituted on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet against the applicant, are
quashed .
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)
July 02, 2026
Pradeep/-
Whether the judgment is speaking – Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable -Yes / No
Digitally signed by :-
PRADEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench