Sonu Pachori vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2025

0
28

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonu Pachori vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2025

                                                                       1

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR

                                                                 BEFORE

                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                        &
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14375 of 2025
                                                      SONU PACHORI
                                                          Versus
                                                      UNION OF INDIA

                                                          WITH
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14379 of 2025
                                                      SONU PACHORI
                                                          Versus
                                                      UNION OF INDIA

                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Appearance:
                                Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
                                Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the respondent
                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   ORDER
                                        (Reserved on                   :       06/05/2025)
                                        (Pronounced on                 :       16/05/2025)
                         Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.

The present applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of
BNSS-2023 have been filed for quashing the charge-sheet/ final report
submitted by the CBI and the consequential trial and proceedings emanating
therefrom.

2. M.Cr.C. No. 14375/2025 has been filed by accused Sonu Pachori arising
out of FIR No. RC2172015A0025 so also the consequential criminal
proceedings pending in S.T. NO. 317/14 before the learned Special Judge
(VYAPAM CASES), Bhopal relating to Pre-Medical Test 2012 (for short

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
2

‘PMT-2012). M.Cr.C. No. 14379/2025 has been filed arising out of FIR No.
RC2172015A0108 and consequential criminal proceedings pending in S.T.
NO. 740/13 before the learned Special Judge (VYAPAM CASES), Bhopal at
the instance of the same accused Sonu Pachori, though relating to Pre-Medical
Test of 2013 but containing similar allegations.

3. As the allegations in both the FIRs arising from PMT-2012 and PMT-
2013 against the applicant Sonu Pachori, in M.Cr.C. No. 14375/2025 and
M.Cr.C. No. 14379/2025 are identical, therefore, these petitions are taken up
and are being decided by this common order analogously.

M.CR.C. No. 14375/2025

4. The FIR in the present case has been registered under the provisions of
Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471,201 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 66 r/w 43 of IT Act &
Section 4/3 (D) 1, (2) of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
The total number of accused persons in the FIR are 587 out of which 20 are
Racketeers/Middle-men, 174 are Engine candidates, 174 are Bogie candidates,
172 are Guardians of the candidates in the matter of Engine-Bogie system of
malpractices. Other type of manipulation is OMR sheet manipulation in which
6 accused are middlemen, 19 accused are candidates and 18 accused persons
are guardians. The present applicant Sonu Pachori has been arrayed as a
middleman.

5. The allegation against the present accused as contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant is that he was working for Racketeer Sanjiv Shilpkar
and there is record of Hotel Raja Bhoj Bhopal in which he has taken entry and
entry was also taken by the co-accused solvers, beneficiary candidates and
other middlemen. It is also alleged that counseling fees for accused candidates
were paid from his Bank Account, mobile phone numbers and email ID of this
applicant was used by other accused candidates in their applications and
counselling forms, common fake House addresses of Bhopal were used in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
3

applicant forms of these accused candidates and as per his own confession
contained in memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, the applicant was also a
part of engine-bogie system himself in 2010 and his sister was a bogie in 2011
PMT examination. Some of the accused candidates in the case of his sister in
PMT 2011 examination are accused in this case as well and large amount of
cash was withdrawn from bank accounts of guardians during the relevant
period. It is contended the only this much is the allegation against the present
applicant and he has been alleged to be a person working for racketeer Sanjiv
Shilpkar.

6. It is argued that the PMT examination for admission to Medical Colleges
in the State used to be conducted in the manner that certain Engine candidates
used to appear in the examination and the bogie candidate were those who
were the actual beneficiaries. The engine and bogie candidates used to be
paired by connivance of officials of Vyapam, in this manner the engine
candidate used to be either the solvers who sat in the examiner centre just
adjacent to the bogie candidate to facilitate cheating, or the persons who used
to be selected and blocked the seats so that on the last date of admissions, the
bogie candidate can take admission, or in case the engine candidate were
acting as solvers, in some cases they appeared in the examination for bogie
candidates by impersonation. There were various other means of malpractice in
PMT examination which also included manipulation in the OMR sheet of the
candidates when the sheet was submitted to the examination centre and
reached Vyapam office for valuation and preparation of result, and at that stage
manipulation used to be carried out in the OMR sheet.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no
allegation of receipt of any consideration by the present applicant and there are
vague and loose allegations of he being in touch of some of the engine
candidates, some bogie candidates, he having paid the examination fees of
some applicants of PMT examination from his bank account, etc. It is

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
4

contended that none of the events would constitute the applicant being a
middleman because there is not a single allegation in the entire case that the
present applicant has actually received any consideration from any candidate
with a false promise of getting his admission procured in medical college or
any promise or assurance of getting him passed or qualified in the PMT
examination, and in absence of the allegation of passing of any consideration
to the present applicant either by the guardian or by the candidate or having
been brought out during the course of investigation by any mode, it cannot be
inferred that the present applicant was actually a middleman in the whole
process in which manipulations and malpractices were carried out in the PMT
examination.

8. It is argued that the applicant has been implicated in the said case though
there is no any proximity with the alleged offence and it is only based on
surmises and conjunctures without any factual foundation of substantial
evidence so also is based on memorandum of co-accused persons under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which is not admissible so as to put the
applicant to trial though it could only have been sufficient to initiate
investigation against the applicant. It is argued that no other material in the
course of investigation has been collected apart from some candidates using
the mobile number of the applicant or applicant having paid for examination
fees of some candidates from his bank account and those candidates had later
on indulged in malpractices in the PMT 2012 examination. It is argued that no
documents or any money which seems to have changed hands has been
recovered from the custody of the applicant nor any transaction of the bank
account of the present applicant has been detected during course of
investigation. There is a recovery of Rs. 30,000/- in cash from the petitioner
and such amount of money from a person who was running coaching center
cannot be said to be such a amount which can conclusively establish that the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
5

applicant was involved in any financial dealing with the candidates or their
parents.

9. On the aforesaid grounds it is alleged that the prosecution against the
present applicant amounts to abuse of process of law and deserves to be
quashed as the case against the applicant is based on flimsy and non-existent
grounds.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently argued that the
allegations against the present applicant are mentioned in detail in paragraph
No. 16.4(x) onwards in the charge-sheet. It is argued that during investigation
the bank accounts were analyzed and it was found that the present applicant
has made payment of application fee or counseling fees in respect of certain
solvers and beneficiaries from his bank account. It was further argued that the
applicant had got filled up application forms of certain candidates from various
Kiosks in Gwalior and accused Sonu Pachori alongwith one K.D.Ojha and one
Sachin Yadav were found to have booked and stayed together with other
accused solvers and beneficiary candidates in Hotel Raja Bhoj in Bhopal and
one father of bogie candidate Ashish Swami met the present applicant who
took him to Peoples Medical College and introduced them with management
of the medical college where the Director of admission of said Medical College
demanded money from the said guardian and the present applicant is also
alleged to have introduced guardian to co-accused Sanjiv Shilpkar who is
stated to be racketeer in the matter.

11. It is further argued by placing reliance on Paragraph No. 16.5(x) of the
charge-sheet that email ID of the present applicant was used by those accused
candidates. By further referring to contents of the charge-sheet it is argued that
the applicant had got the application forms filled up from Kiosk named M/s
Dubey Computers, Thatipur, Gwalior, in respect of 7 candidates. It is further
argued that the applicant had booked hotel room in his own name in which
certain candidates stayed who had come to appear in the PMT examination. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
6

is contended that the present applicant was linked with Peoples Medical
College, Bhopal and that the connivance of the present applicant is established
in admission of 5 engine candidates and further reiterated that the applicant had
been introducing the guardians to Medical Colleges which were indulging in
malpractices in giving wrongful admission. On this assertion it is submitted
that there is sufficient material available on record against the present applicant
on basis of which his prosecution is sustainable and no grounds are made out to
quash the proceedings against the present applicant.

12. It has been submitted that the only test is that where the allegation in the
FIR or the charge-sheet even if they are proved at their face value do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused, or
allegation in the offence do not disclose cognizable offence which is not so in
the present case.

13. Heard.

14. The allegation against the present applicant has been mentioned at
various places in the charge-sheet running into almost 100 pages. The
allegations has been summarized at internal page 27 of the charge-sheet so far
as the present applicant is concerned which is as under:-

“He was working for racketeer Sanjiv Shilpkar, record of
hotel Raja Bhoj Bhopal, with his own entry and also that of co
accused solvers, beneficiary candidates and other middlemen,
counseling fee paid for accused candidates from his bank a/c,
mobile phone number and email ID used by other accused
candidates in application and counseling forms, common fake
House addresses of Bhopal used in A/F of accused
candidates, Diary seized by STF, SEQD opinion on the entries
in the diary, Own confession u/s 27 IEA, also a part of engine
bogie himself in 2010, his sister was a bogie in 2011 PMT
exam and Umesh Katiyar accused engine of this case was
engine in her case as well, accused in other vyapam cases as
well, large amounts of cash withdrawn from bank a/cs of
Guardians during the relevant period, statements of relevant
witnesses.”

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
7

15. All other allegations which were vehemently argued by learned counsel
for the respondents are only the details of the said allegation against the present
applicant which has been encapsulated by CBI itself in the aforesaid para
quoted above.

16. The allegations against the applicant are in the matter of he having been
working for racketeer Sanjiv Shilpkar and that he booked hotel room in his
name in which certain accused candidates had stayed who indulged in
malpractice in the examination and in the admission process. It was also
alleged that he paid admission fees from his own bank account for 5 or 6
candidates and some candidates used his email ID for filling up the form and
that he himself was a candidate in PMT 2010 and his sister was a candidate in
PMT 2011 examination and some accused persons of this case were also
accused persons in PMT-2010 and 2011 and therefore, he was in proximity
with the candidates and other accused persons of PMT-2012 as well.

17. In the entire charge-sheet there is not a single allegation against the
present applicant that he has taken any money from any parent or guardian or
candidate or official of Medical College or official of Vyapam. The only
allegation against the applicant is getting filled up some application forms from
Kiosks by paying from his bank account and making some payments in cash to
kiosks operators who filled the application forms Online. In the State of M.P.
various services like filling up of forms for examination etc. are offered in
online mode only and to facilitate such services for common people, various
kiosks have been setup by private operators under authority of State
Government from which a person can get such application forms etc. filled up
for various Online Services offered by the State Government or its agencies.
The allegation against the applicant is that he approached the kiosks operators
and for examination forms filled up of such candidates and paid cash
application fees to the kiosks operators.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
8

18. However, no malpractice has been alleged in the matter of filling up of
application forms by the candidates. The malpractices that have been alleged
by the candidates are while sitting for examination and at the time of taking
admission in the Medical College. Therefore, even if any proximity of the
petitioner is established from such accused candidates at the time of filling up
of the application forms, in which there is no malpractice is alleged, it cannot
be inferred that by assisting the candidates in filling up of application forms,
the present applicant was assisting the candidate to conduct malpractices in the
examination which took place much after filling up the application forms. The
admission process was even later to examination. The process had three
distinct stages, i.e. Application, examination and admissions.

19. During the course of admission process allegations are there against the
applicant that he introduced some of the candidates to the authorities of the
Medical College and the Authorities of Medical College accepted the money
from such guardian or parents of candidates. However, there is no iota in the
entire charge-sheet that the present applicant brokered any deal with the
medical college concerned or with the Vyapam Official or with the
examination centre or that he accepted any money or he had negotiated or
brokered the payment made to such officials of Medical College concerned.
The only allegation is facilitating filling up of application forms for PMT-2012
which is admission stage and further, and at the time of admissions introducing
the candidate concerned or his parents to the Medical College concerned.

20. Apart from these allegations there is no other allegations except that his
email ID has been used by some candidates.

21. Once the applicant is alleged to have paid examination fees of some
candidates in cash to Kiosks operators or from his bank account, then at the
most it could be inferred that he was having some proximity with the
candidates which is not sufficient to establish his proximity with the crime of
malpractices in the matter of examination or admission process.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
9

22. It was argued by learned counsel for the CBI that the applicant was a
part of conspiracy and the conspiracy is behind closed doors which can be
inferred and cannot be expressly proved and the matter may be subject to
evidence. Learned counsel for the CBI had also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh,
(2010) 11 SCC 226 and Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2021 SC
1531, it was argued that the quashment of the criminal proceedings at threshold
should not be made easily once there is sufficient material and while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not
ordinarily conduct enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not,
which is the function of the trial court/ trial judge.

23. In the present case, the investigation is over and the charge-sheet has
been filed and it is not a case of quashing of FIR at the stage pending
investigation. The applicant is accused of being a middleman in the process but
as discussed above, no proximity of the applicant can be established from the
material collected by the CBI during the course of investigation in examination
and admission process apart from tid-bits here and there. In the case of State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
, (2005) 11 SCC 600 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-

“99. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot
be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal
conspiracy. The circumstances before, during and after the occurrence can be
proved to decide about the complicity of the accused. (Vide Esher
Singh v. State of A.P.
[(2004) 11 SCC 585 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 113] )”

24. The charge-sheet further discloses that the racketeers were running
rackets having several middlemen in the form of chains working under them.
The middlemen had their agents working under them on commission basis for
arranging the interested party. However, there is no allegation against the
applicant that he had brokered any deal on commission basis with any official

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
10

of the Vyapam or official of the medical college concerned. He is alleged to
have worked as middleman for some pairs of engine and bogie candidates. The
respondents have failed to attribute any specific overt act to the applicant and
mere reference to have alleged association with certain persons does not
establish a prima facie case connecting with crime. The material collected by
the CBI can establish some association of the said candidates with the
applicant but is not material on which proximity with the crime can be
attributed to the applicant. Though it was orally stated by counsel for the CBI
that there are memorandum statements of co-accused persons so also called
call details between the applicant and co-accused candidates, but association
with the person and association or proximity in the crime are two different
aspects. It is not in dispute that no transaction of money which was a
instrument of crime or for which the crime has taken place for procuring false
admission has either changed in the hands of the applicant or has been
brokered by the applicant, even as per allegations contained in the charge-
sheet.

25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal
, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1348 has held as under:-

“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
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give 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.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
11

(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.”

26. In view of the above in our opinion, it is a fit case to quash the
proceeding against the present applicant. Consequently, the petition deserves to
be and is hereby allowed against the present applicant and FIR, charge-sheet
and consequential proceedings against the present applicant are hereby
quashed.

MCRC 14379/2025

27. This application is at the instance of the same accused Sonu Pachori but
relates to PMT-2013. The final report / charge sheet has been presented under
Sections 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC, Sections 3(2) r/w
Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 25 & 27 of the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
12

Arms Act, Section 66r/w Section 43 of the I.T. Act and Section 4/3(D) 1, (2) of
Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937.

28. In this case also there are number of accused persons and as per Para
16.1(f) of the charge-sheet the number of accused persons is 491. The present
applicant has been alleged to be a middleman like the case relating to PMT-
2012. In the charge-sheet the name of present applicant figures at page 19
thereof in the paragraph relating to discussion of role of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
Shilpkar (accused No.467) who is alleged to be racketeer and it has been
mentioned that he was connected with middleman Vikas Singh Chandel, Sonu
Pachori, etc. for the purpose of arranging scorers and candidates and pairing
the same. Later on, the System Analyst of VYAPAM used to temper with the
roll numbers so as to facilitate the sponsored candidates to sit behind the
scorers for the purpose of cheating. The allegation against Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
Shilpkar wherein the name of applicant appears is as under:-

“Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar (A-467):- Investigation
revealed that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar was connected with
middlemen Vikas Singh Chandel, Sonu Pachori, Sunil Dubey,
Sudhir Rai and others for the purpose of arranging scorers and
candidates and pairing the same, used to handover the list to
Nitin Mohindra for tampering of the roll numbers in particular
MPPMT 2013. This was done in order to facilitate the
candidates to sit behind the scorer for the purpose of cheating.
This work was undertaken by him in lieu of money from the
respective guardians of the candidates and giving part of the
same to Vyapam Officials. A list containing names of 92
candidates and scorers in pair was seized from him. Details of
the evidence including names of candidates and scorers,
pertaining to this racketeer accused has been mentioned
separately.”

29. It is alleged that in this manner the present applicant arranged 13 pairs of
scorers and candidates for racketeer Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar.

30. It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the present case
is also based on surmises and conjectures against the present applicant because
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
13

there is no allegation of handing over of money by or to the petitioner and
there is no allegation that the present petitioner accepted any money from the
candidates or he handed over any money to Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar or that he
brokered any deal either with Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar or with VYAPAM
officials in the matter. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against the
present applicant to connect him with the alleged offence because neither any
money has been recovered nor any transactions in the bank account of the
present applicant have been disclosed during the course of investigation which
can connect the present applicant with the crime of malpractices in the
examination.

31. The prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the CBI by submitting
that the present applicant had given names of 13 candidates and Rs.40,00,000/-
to accused Sanjeev Kumar Shilpkar which is as per the memorandum
statements of present applicant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

32. Apart from the said memorandum statement, the other material that is
alleged against the present applicant is seizure of notebook in which names of
13 candidates are written and the writing has been found to be of the present
applicant. Apart from the aforesaid, learned counsel for the CBI could not point
out any material against the present applicant.

33. As in the previous case, in the present case also no actual transaction of
money has been detected during the course of investigation apart from
memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the
pleadings made in the reply that a diary has been seized from the present
applicant in which names of 13 candidates are there and the amount received
from each of the candidates are mentioned against the said 13 names, does not
figure in the charge sheet which is placed on record as Annexure P-1.
Therefore, the pleadings made in the reply that diary has been seized from the
present applicant mentioning the names of 13 candidates and the amount

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41
14

mentioned against each name which was the amount taken for procuring
admission / selection in the PMT Examination does not find place in the
charge-sheet.

34. Therefore, this Court does not find this case any different from the case
of M.Cr.C. No. 14375/2025. The prosecution and consequential proceedings
against the applicant in the present case also appears to be based on non-
existent material. Resultantly, the FIR and the proceedings emanating
therefrom deserves to be and are hereby quashed.

                         (SURESH KUMAR KAIT)                                   (VIVEK JAIN)
                            CHIF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE


MISHRA/NKS




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 17-05-
2025 10:42:41



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here