Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case

Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is maintainable if filed on fresh grounds or changed circumstances.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law when subsequent judicial findings fundamentally alter the basis of the prosecution’s case. The court consequently quashed the criminal proceedings against Neeraj Malik, Executive Vice President of M/s Aptech Ltd., in connection with the 2016-17 Jal Nigam recruitment scam.

The applicant, Neeraj Malik, was named in a supplementary charge-sheet following an SIT inquiry into alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 1,300 personnel in U.P. Jal Nigam. It was alleged that Aptech Ltd., the agency hired for the recruitment, conspired with officials to manipulate marks and destroy evidence by deleting examination data from cloud servers. Malik challenged the proceedings after a previous 482 petition was withdrawn, citing fresh grounds arising from a coordinate bench's judgment which found no large-scale fraud in the same selection process.

The primary question before the court was whether a second application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable after the withdrawal of a previous petition for the same relief. The court also had to determine if the allegations of conspiracy, cheating, and destruction of evidence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 201 of the IPC, along with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were prima facie made out against the applicant.

Court’s Observations On Maintainability Of Second Petition

The State raised a preliminary objection arguing that the second petition was not maintainable as the first one was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the High Court rejected this contention by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. The Court noted that there is no blanket bar on a successive application if the circumstances existing at the time of the subsequent petition are different from the earlier one.

Court Clarifies Scope Of Successive 482 Petitions

The bench observed that the findings recorded in a related writ petition (Writ A No. 7076 of 2021) on October 04, 2024, which upheld the validity of the selection process, constituted a "material change in circumstances." The court held that since these findings were not available during the first petition, the applicant was entitled to invoke the court's inherent jurisdiction again to challenge the criminal proceedings based on the same set of facts.

Analysis Of Allegations Under Section 201 IPC

Regarding the charge of causing disappearance of evidence, the prosecution alleged that Aptech deleted primary examination data from the cloud server. The applicant contended that the data was merely shifted to archival storage in accordance with the company’s Data Retention Policy and ISO standards. The Court found that shifting data from a primary cloud server to a secondary archival server does not amount to deletion or destruction of evidence.

Archiving Data Is Not Destruction Of Evidence

The Court noted that the "original data" remained untampered and contained complete audit trails, which were always available to the investigating agency. "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," the bench observed, concluding that no case under Section 201 IPC was made out.

Absence Of Prima Facie Case For Conspiracy And Forgery

The Court scrutinized the allegations of conspiracy and forgery, noting that the prosecution failed to specify any prior meeting of minds between the applicant and Jal Nigam officials. It was observed that the applicant, as a senior executive, was not involved in the actual preparation of question papers or the tabulation of marks, which were handled by third-party experts and specific technical teams.

Vicarious Liability In Criminal Law

The bench reiterated the principle laid down in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, stating that directors or senior employees of a company cannot be roped in as accused unless there is sufficient incriminating evidence of their direct involvement and criminal intent. The Court found that the allegations against Malik were vague and bald, lacking any specific role attribution that would satisfy the ingredients of cheating or forgery under the IPC.

Court Relies On Earlier Findings Of No Malpractice

A crucial factor in the Court's decision was the earlier judgment in the case of Samrah Ahmad v. State of U.P., where the High Court had already held that a minuscule number of wrong questions did not vitiate the entire examination. The Court emphasized that if the selection process itself was found to be largely untainted in civil proceedings, the criminal charges of a "large-scale conspiracy" against the service provider's executive could not be sustained.

Quashing To Prevent Abuse Of Process

Applying the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., the Court held that continuing the trial against the applicant would be an exercise in futility. It noted that the material relied upon by the accused was of "sterling quality" and sufficient to reject the factual assertions made in the charge-sheet.

The High Court concluded that there was no iota of evidence linking the applicant to the alleged inflation of marks or any fraudulent activity. The bench allowed the application, quashing the charge-sheet dated May 24, 2021, the cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings against Neeraj Malik to prevent unwarranted persecution and a failure of justice.

Date of Decision: July 02, 2026