Patna High Court
Syed Wakil Ashrafi @ Dr. Md. Wakil AshrafiversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The application is allowed and the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the criminal revision is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a college principal, was accused by a former student of issuing a forged mark‑sheet that allegedly caused the student to lose admission after a delayed result publication. The complaint led to criminal proceedings under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, which were later dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed an application to quash that dismissal, arguing that the mark‑sheet was genuine, the Bihar School Examination Board affirmed its authenticity, and the complainant had no specific allegation of forgery. The court examined the complaint, witness statements, and the Board’s counter‑affidavit, finding no material discrepancy between the alleged forged copy and the original record. It held that the allegations did not disclose any prima facie case of cheating or forgery. Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court concluded that the criminal revision was an abuse of process. Consequently, the order dismissing the revision was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of forgery and cheating under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner.
- Whether the criminal revision proceeding should be quashed on the ground of lack of evidence and abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- forgery
- cheating
- criminal revision
- quash
- examination board
- mark‑sheet
- abuse of process
- result delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31161 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1485 Year-2011 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Syed Wakil Ashrafi @ Dr. Md. Wakil Ashrafi Son of Syed Jabbar Asharfi
resident of Bibipur, PS - Kako, District - Jehanabad, State - Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Randeep Kumar Son of Shiv Shankar Mandal resident of Village - Rewasi,
PS - Riga, District – Sitamarhi.
3. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Uday Chand Prasad
For the BSEB : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 08-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
BSEB.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Sitmarhi dismissing the Cr. Rev. No. 50 of 2016 preferred
against the order of cognizance dated 08.02.2016 (Mistakenly
typed as 08.02.2015) passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Sadar,
Sitamarhi under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the
petitioner and others in Trial No. 2397 of 2016 arising out of
Complaint Case No. C1-1485 of 2011.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31161 of 2016(9) dt.08-01-2026
2/5
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant has alleged that he was the student of the college
for the Sessions 2009-11. The petitioner has issued provisional
Admit Card to the complainant for his appearance in the
concerned examination. The complainant has suffered
irreparable loss on account of extraordinary delay in publishing
his result. It is further alleged that the complainant made request
with the petitioner and other accused persons for publication of
his result; but no action was taken. It is further alleged that the
complainant participated in counselling process for admission
after getting success in the entrance examination, 2011. During
the counselling process, the mark sheet given to the complainant
by the petitioner who was the Principal of the College, was
found to be forged at the time of counselling on account of
which, the complainant could not get admission.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that although in the complaint petition, it has been alleged that
the copy of the mark sheet issued by the Board and certified by
the College is forged, neither the complainant on nor any of the
enquiry witnesses have so suggested. Their statements rather
show that the complainant was merely aggrieved by the delayed
publication of his result. He further submits that if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31161 of 2016(9) dt.08-01-2026
3/5
statements of the complainant and the enquiry witnesses are to
be believed, no offence either of cheating or forgery is attracted
against the petitioner or even others under the present
circumstances.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that even on a prima facie comparison of the alleged
forged certified copy of mark sheet enclosed with the complaint
petition with the copy of original mark sheet available in the
record of the Board/College, one can hardly notice any material
difference between the two and, as such, the claim of
issuance/certification of allegedly forged mark sheet has no legs
to stand upon and is completely without basis.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that when the issuing Board and the concerned
College is repeatedly affirming the genuineness of the mark-
sheet, it is sheer bankruptcy of the O.P. No. 2 to claim it to be
forged especially when it is learnt that on the strength of the
same mark-sheet, the O.P. No. 2 has already been admitted in
some engineering college at Hyderabad. He further submits that
the present case is nothing but an abuse of the process of law by
misleading the Court and such frivolous and malicious
prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31161 of 2016(9) dt.08-01-2026
4/5
7. The learned APP for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the BSEB by relying on the
counter affidavit has submitted the allegation of the O.P. No. 2
regarding issuing of forged mark-sheet is completely false and
baseless.
9. I have heard and considered the materials on
record, including the complaint petition, statements of the
complainant and enquiry witnesses, and counter affidavit filed
by BSEB.
10. The complainant and witnesses merely express
grievance over delayed result publication, with no specific
averment that the mark-sheet issued/certified by the petitioner
was forged. Prima-facie comparison reveals no material
discrepancy between the alleged forged copy and original
Board/College records. BSEB affirms the mark-sheet's
genuineness, and Opposite Party No. 2 has secured admission in
an engineering college at Hyderabad on its strength. No
ingredients of cheating or forgery are prima facie disclosed
against the petitioner.
11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors V/s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31161 of 2016(9) dt.08-01-2026
5/5
Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 335, the present
application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 26.05.2016
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitmarhi dismissing the
Cr. Rev. No. 50 of 2016 and all the consequential proceedings
arising out of Complaint Case No. C1-1485 of 2011 are hereby
quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…