Section 482 CrPC | Second Petition Maintainable on New Material Facts: Allahabad HC Quashes Chargesheet for Lack of Evidence

The Allahabad High Court has clarified the maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when new circumstances emerge after the dismissal of the first petition. The Court quashed a charge-sheet against an executive of M/s Aptech Ltd., holding that no prima facie case was made out under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, or Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the allegations lacked specificity and material evidence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case arises from a First Information Report (FIR) No. 02/2018 lodged on 25.04.2018 by the Inspector-in-charge of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), Uttar Pradesh, against several officials of the U.P. Jal Nigam and unnamed representatives of M/s Aptech Ltd. The FIR alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for 1,300 posts (Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, and clerks/stenographers) conducted by the Jal Nigam. The allegations included:

• Non-publication of answer keys immediately after the examination
• Deletion of primary examination data from the cloud server
• Inflation of marks for 169 ineligible candidates, depriving deserving candidates of selection

The applicant, Neeraj Malik, was arrayed as an accused in a supplementary charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Key Facts

• Recruitment Notifications: Issued on 19.11.2016 (Assistant Engineers), 28.10.2016 (Junior Engineers), and 18.06.2016 (clerks/stenographers)
• Agreement with M/s Aptech Ltd.: Executed on 15.12.2016 for conducting the recruitment examination
• Examination Conduct: Computer-Based Test (CBT) conducted, but answer keys were not published immediately
• Result Declaration: Results declared on 03.01.2017, appointment letters issued on the same date
• Cancellation of Appointments: Jal Nigam canceled all 1,300 appointments on 11.08.2017, but this order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court in Ajit Singh Patel v. State of U.P. : 2018 (1) ADJ 166, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Ajit Singh Patel : (2019) 12 SCC 285
• SIT Inquiry Report: Submitted on 28.03.2018, alleging irregularities and criminal conspiracy
• Second Cancellation Order: Jal Nigam canceled appointments again on 02.03.2020, which was challenged in Writ A No. 7076 of 2021
• High Court Judgment: On 04.10.2024, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the selection process, holding that no large-scale conspiracy or fraud was established

Procedural History

• 25.04.2018: FIR lodged by SIT
• 28.03.2018: SIT inquiry report submitted
• 12.08.2021: Initial charge-sheet filed against four accused
• 24.05.2021: Supplementary charge-sheet filed against the applicant and three others
• 15.07.2021: Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI (Central), Lucknow, took cognizance (Crl. Misc. Case No. 336/2021)
• October 2021: Applicant surrendered and was enlarged on bail
• 13.12.2022: First petition under Section 482 CrPC (Application No. 6538 of 2022) dismissed as withdrawn
• 04.10.2024: High Court allowed Writ A No. 7076 of 2021, upholding the selection process
• 28.03.2024: Present petition (Application U/s 482 No. 11817 of 2024) filed

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicant

• The applicant was Executive Vice President of M/s Aptech Ltd. at the time of the recruitment but had no role in software development, setting question papers, tabulation of scores, or preparation of merit lists
• The applicant was not employed by M/s Aptech Ltd. when the company was initially selected by Jal Nigam (19.05.2016) and joined only on 01.06.2016
• The non-publication of answer keys was pursuant to specific instructions from Jal Nigam, which the company was contractually bound to follow
• The primary data of the examination was not deleted but shifted to the company’s archives in accordance with its Data Retention Policy dated 21.01.2015
• The CFSL report did not find any tampering with the data maintained by Aptech
• The judgment dated 04.10.2024 in Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. held that Aptech was not involved in preparing question papers/answer keys and that minor discrepancies in the examination process did not vitiate the entire process
• No specific allegation or material evidence linked the applicant to the alleged offences

For the Respondent/State

• The applicant was responsible for ensuring execution of the recruitment examination and failed to publish answer keys immediately, allegedly under a criminal conspiracy
• The delay in publishing answer keys deprived candidates of the opportunity to raise objections
• The deletion of primary data from the cloud server destroyed valuable evidence
• The inflation of marks for 169 candidates was part of a conspiracy to benefit ineligible candidates
• The CFSL report established the culpability of the accused, including the applicant
• The judgment dated 04.10.2024 in Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. merely held that no large-scale conspiracy was established, but did not exonerate the applicant

Relief Sought

The applicant sought:

• Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021
• Quashing of the order dated 15.07.2021 taking cognizance of the offences
• Quashing of the entire proceedings instituted on the basis of the charge-sheet

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable when:

1. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn (not decided on merits), and
2. New circumstances (a subsequent judgment of the High Court) arose that materially altered the factual and legal landscape of the case.

Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the allegations and material evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant for the offences under Sections 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• Maintainability of Second Petition: Relied on Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2019) 17 SCC 294, where the Supreme Court held that a second petition is maintainable if new material or changed circumstances arise. The judgment dated 04.10.2024 in Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. constituted such a change
• No Specific Role Attributed: Cited Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. : (2022) 15 SCC 430 and Narendra Kumar v. State of Karnataka : 2022 INSC 301, holding that a senior employee cannot be made an accused without specific allegations
• Vicarious Liability: Relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI : (2015) 4 SCC 609, arguing that directors/employees of a company can be roped in only if there is incriminating evidence or statutory vicarious liability
• Abuse of Process: Contended that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process, as no prima facie case was made out (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy : AIR 1977 SC 1489)
• Vague Allegations: Cited Mirza Iqbal v. State of U.P. : AIR 2022 SC 69, arguing that vague allegations amount to over-implication and abuse of process

For the Respondent/State

• Second Petition Not Maintainable: Relied on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. : (2024) 15 SCC 282, where the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if the grounds were available at the time of the first petition
• Mini Trial Not Permissible: Cited C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh : (2023) 18 SCC 399 and other judgments, arguing that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage
• Scope of Inquiry Limited: Contended that the correctness of allegations should not be examined at this stage, and proceedings should be quashed only if no case is made out at face value

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a two-step analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Second Petition under Section 482 CrPC

   The Court examined the preliminary objection raised by the State that the second petition was not maintainable. It relied on the following precedents:

   • Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. : (2024) 15 SCC 282: The Supreme Court held that a second petition is not maintainable if the grounds were available at the time of the first petition. However, it carved out an exception where circumstances at the time of the subsequent petition differ from those at the time of the earlier one
   • Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2019) 17 SCC 294: The Supreme Court allowed a second petition where new material (Form 32) was produced, which was not considered earlier
   • Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh : (1975) 3 SCC 706: The Supreme Court held that a successive application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable if circumstances change

   The Court observed that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn and not decided on merits. Subsequently, the judgment dated 04.10.2024 in Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P. held that:

   • There was no large-scale conspiracy or fraud in the selection process
   • Aptech was not involved in preparing question papers/answer keys
   • Minor discrepancies in the examination process did not vitiate the entire process

   This judgment materially altered the factual and legal landscape, providing a new ground for the applicant to challenge the proceedings. Thus, the second petition was maintainable.

2. Examination of the Merits: Whether a Prima Facie Case Was Made Out

   The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI : (2010) 9 SCC 368 to determine whether the allegations and material evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant. It analyzed each offence as follows:

   • Section 201 IPC (Causing Disappearance of Evidence):

     • The allegation was that Aptech deleted primary data from the cloud server
     • The applicant contended that the data was merely shifted to the company’s archives in accordance with its Data Retention Policy
     • The judgment dated 04.10.2024 held that Aptech did not breach the contract by shifting data
     • The CFSL report did not find any tampering with the data maintained by Aptech
     • Conclusion: No offence under Section 201 IPC was made out

   • Section 420 IPC (Cheating):

     • The offence requires dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or harm
     • There was no allegation that the applicant deceived anyone or induced any act/omission causing harm
     • Conclusion: No offence under Section 420 IPC was made out

   • Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC (Forgery and Using Forged Documents):

     • Section 467 IPC applies to forgery of valuable securities, wills, or authorities
     • There was no allegation that the applicant forged any such document
     • Delayed publication of answer keys did not amount to forgery
     • Conclusion: No offence under Sections 467, 468, or 471 IPC was made out

   • Section 120-B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy):

     • Requires an agreement to commit an illegal act
     • There was no allegation of a prior meeting of minds between the applicant and Jal Nigam officials
     • No quid pro quo or mala fide intent was established
     • The judgment dated 04.10.2024 held that no conspiracy was established
     • Conclusion: No offence under Section 120-B IPC was made out

   • Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

     • Requires abuse of official position for obtaining undue advantage
     • The applicant was a private employee with no official position in Jal Nigam
     • No allegation of undue favour or benefit extended to any candidate
     • Conclusion: No offence under Section 13(1)(d) was made out

   The Court also relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, which laid down guidelines for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It held that:

   • The judgment dated 04.10.2024 was material of sterling quality that ruled out the charges against the applicant
   • The State failed to refute these findings
   • Proceeding with the trial would be an abuse of process

   "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. 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 Verdict

The Court allowed the petition and quashed:

1. The charge-sheet dated 24.05.2021 submitted against the applicant
2. The order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI (Central), Lucknow, taking cognizance of the offences
3. The entire proceedings instituted on the basis of the charge-sheet

The Court held that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law and failure of justice to the applicant.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Second Petition Under Section 482 CrPC: When Is It Maintainable?

• Changed Circumstances: A second petition is maintainable if new material or changed circumstances arise after the dismissal of the first petition, provided the first petition was not decided on merits
• Judicial Precedents: Courts will examine whether the new circumstances materially alter the case, as held in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh
• Dismissal as Withdrawn: If the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the second petition is not barred, as it does not constitute a decision on merits

Quashing Proceedings: The Burden of Specificity

• Specific Allegations Required: Courts will not permit trial on vague or bald allegations. There must be specific material linking the accused to the offence, as held in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Mirza Iqbal v. State of U.P.
• Role-Based Liability: For senior employees or directors of a company, specific allegations of involvement are necessary. Vicarious liability applies only if incriminating evidence or statutory provisions attract it (Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI)
• Private Employees: Private employees cannot be prosecuted for offences requiring abuse of official position (e.g., Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act) unless specific acts of mala fide are alleged

Scope of Scrutiny at Quashing Stage

• No Mini-Trial: Courts cannot conduct a detailed scrutiny of the probative value of evidence at the quashing stage (C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh)

• Face Value Test: The allegations must disclose a prima facie case at face value. If they are inherently improbable or absurd, the proceedings may be quashed (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal)

• Material of Sterling Quality: If judicial findings or evidence (e.g., a High Court judgment) rule out the charges, the proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process (Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P.)

• Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners:

  • Always examine whether new circumstances justify a second petition under Section 482 CrPC
  • Challenge vague allegations by relying on precedents requiring specificity
  • Leverage judicial findings (e.g., High Court judgments) to argue that no prima facie case is made out
  • Distinguish between private and public employees when dealing with offences like Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Argue abuse of process if the material on record rules out the charges