JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Sri Nipun Singh and Sri Upendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.D.Rai, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party nos. 1 & 3 and Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant (Naval Dey Bharti) with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.337 of 2016, summoning order dated 14.06.2017 as well as proceedings of Case No.396 of 2017 (State vs. Naval Dey Bharti), under Section 3/10 Examination Act, 1982, Police Station-Kydganj, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Allahabad.

Basic Facts:-

3. Filtering out unnecessary details, brief facts of the case as emerges on record are that on written report of opposite party no.2 (Ram Nayan Dwivedi, the Principal of K.N. Katju Inter College, Kydganj, Allahabad), FIR was registered on 21.09.2016 as Case Crime No.0337 of 2016, under section 3/10 Examination Act, 1982 against the applicant at Police Station- Kydganj, District- Allahabad. In the said FIR allegation has been levelled against the applicant that on 21.09.2016, the applicant appeared in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Main Examination, 2016 conducted in second shift between 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. in Room No.5 of K.N.Katju Inter College, Allahabad. On completion of examination she did not submit her answer sheet to the invigilators, instead left the examination room alongwith her answer sheet of essay. Such information was given by the assistant teachers namely Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Sapna Mazumdar, who were on duty as invigilators in Room No.5 to the Principal Satyendra Tripathi (Statics Magistrate) and representatives of the Commission. On the aforesaid information, immediately the main gate of the school was closed with the help of police personnel posted there. Thereafter efforts were made to trace the applicant but she had gone out of the gate by that time.

4. The opposite party no.3 was the Investigating Officer and conducted the investigation of this case. The detail of investigation in the matter are as follows:-

(i) On 21.09.2016 in C.D.No.I, the Investigating Officer has made an entry of FIR and statement of scriber of the FIR.

(ii) On 20.10.2016 in C.D.No.II, the Investigating Officer has made an entry that he went to the college to meet the Principal/opposite party no.2 but he was not there at that time.

(iii) On 14.11.2016 in C.D. No.III, the Investigating Officer has made an entry that he went to meet the Principal of the College/opposite party no.2 but he was told that principal is not available.

(iv) On 03.12.2016 in C.D. No.IV, the Investigating Officer has made an entry of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Nayan Dwivedi (informant/opposite party no.2), in which he has mentioned the date of examination/incident as 03.10.2016, while the date of incident was 21.09.2016.

(v) On 16.12.2016 in C.D.No.V, the investigating officer has made an entry that he contacted the applicant on her telephone to record her statement but she said that she is out of station, therefore, she is unable to get her statement recorded.

(vi) On 05.01.2017 in C.D.No.VI, the Investigating Officer made an entry of the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of invigilators Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Smt.Swapna Majumdar as well as statement of accused/applicant.

(vii) On 29.01.2017 in C.D.No.VII, the Investigating Officer has made an entry of concluding the investigation by mentioning that after completion of investigation, offence under section 3/10 of Examination Act is made out against the accused/applicant (Naval Dey Bharti).

5. On 19.01.2017 the investigating officer submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 3/10 of the Examination