RAJENDRASINH PRAVISINH VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. J. S. Yadav on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicant seeks quashment of an FIR being C. R. No. I-287 of 2018 registered with the Sector-7 Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar on 2/12/2018 for offences punishable under Ss. - 406, 420, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

(3.) At the outset, before going to the facts it would be required to be noted that the present petition for quashing is preferred by a candidate who was to appear for an exam to be conducted by the Police Recruitment Board, more particularly, to the post of Lokrakshak and whereas the allegation against the petitioner being that he had traveled to Delhi to view the leaked question paper and whereas it also appears that he had paid substantial amount for such viewing. While the grounds raised by the applicant, more particularly, being with regard to the jurisdiction etc would be referred to herein below but, what would be relevant to note is that a person who wanted to join the police force even before joining had allegedly paid money for viewing question paper and whereas an FIR with regard to the same is sought to be quashed by exercising discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 . 3.1. The FIR lodged by one Virendrasingh Yadav Superintendent of Police (CID Crime), Gandhinagar being member of the Police Recruitment Board for Class- III employees for Gujarat Police, inter alia alleges that the date of written examination for the post of Lokrakshak was scheduled on 2/12/2018 i.e. the date of the FIR and whereas in the morning it had come to the notice of the Chairman of the Recruitment Board that the examination paper had leaked. The FIR narrates as to how the Chairman had received the said information and whereas the FIR also narrates in brief as to how the answer keys had reached in hands of certain persons who either had applied for appearing in the examination or were in some way connected with the examination. It also appears that the answer paper had been obtained from Delhi by one of the accused Yashpalsinh Solanki. Subsequent to filing of the FIR, the present applicant has preferred the present petition.