Second Section 482 petition is maintainable upon change of circumstances and lack of specific incriminating evidence.

The applicant, an executive of M/s Aptech Ltd., was implicated in a supplementary charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 related to alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 1,300 posts in U.P. Jal Nigam in 2016-17.

The SIT inquiry alleged that Aptech failed to publish answer keys, deleted primary examination data from cloud servers, and manipulated marks to benefit 169 ineligible candidates.

A previous Section 482 petition by the applicant was withdrawn in 2022.

Subsequently, in October 2024, the High Court in a related writ petition (Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P.) ruled that the selection process was not compromised by fraud and directed re-appointments.

The applicant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings based on these changed circumstances and the absence of specific evidence.

1. Whether a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable after the withdrawal of the first petition, given the change in circumstances.

2. Whether the allegations and evidence collected by the SIT prima facie constitute offences under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. and Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), establishing that a second petition is maintainable under changed circumstances or fresh grounds.

It followed State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding categories for quashing.

It utilized Sajjan Kumar v. CBI on the "sifting and weighing" of evidence to find a prima facie case.

Regarding corporate liability, it applied Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, holding that directors/executives cannot be roped in without specific incriminating evidence or statutory vicarious liability.

The court used the "four-step test" for indubitable material from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P.

The Court first resolved the maintainability issue, holding that the 2024 judgment in the civil writ petitions constituted a significant change in circumstances, making a second petition permissible.

On merits, the Court found the Section 201 IPC (destruction of evidence) charge groundless because the data was not deleted but shifted to archives per Aptech’s Data Retention Policy.

The charges of forgery (Sec. 467/468) and cheating (Sec. 420) failed because the applicant was not a subject matter expert involved in preparing answer keys, nor was there evidence of him accessing or manipulating the digital marks.

The Court noted that in Samrah Ahmad, the High Court had already found the percentage of wrong questions to be "minuscule" and ruled out a large-scale conspiracy.

Applying the Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani test, the Court determined that the findings in the writ jurisdiction were of "sterling and impeccable quality" and refuted the factual basis of the SIT’s criminal accusations.

It held that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of process as the prosecution material failed to link the applicant to any specific criminal act or meeting of minds.

The Court allowed the application and quashed the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021, the cognizance order dated 15.07.2021, and all further proceedings in Case Crime No. 2 of 2018 against the applicant.