The main legal point established is that the acts complained of must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty, and prosecution requires the necessary sanction from the competent authority.

ORDER :

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, and to quash the chargesheet which resulted in Criminal Case No. 703/2012, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, Jabalpur, against the petitioner for offence under section 4 read with section 3D(2)/4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937 and section 119 of Indian Penal Code, and in the alternative, section 119 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, the petitioner Smt. Shakuntala Verma was the incharge of the examination centre, namely, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Katangi at the relevant time and having Centre No. 711027, wherein the Higher Secondary and High School examinations were being conducted. On 5-3-2012, a surprise inspection was conducted by the Divisional Officer of the Board of Secondary Examination, Jabalpur. In the class rooms the examination was being conducted, where 752 Higher Secondary students and 159 High School students were participating. During the surprise check the students were found engaged in “mass-copying” in presence of the invigilators. The students were found using slips, guides, books and other unfair means etc. in the examination. The Incharge of the Centre had no control over the Invigilators, neither she was inspecting whether the invigilators are doing their duties in the class rooms or not. The unfair means, such as articles, books, etc. were being used as outsiders were throwing the same to the examination rooms. The Invigilators in the surprise check gathered slips, articles and unfair means and tried to burn them outside the class room. Immediately the Divisional Officer informed the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and he was directed to lodge First Information Report against the Incharge of the Examination Centre and then informed to the Board at Bhopal. Therefore, he covered the incident by a handicam and also prepared a C.D. and lodged the FIR and informed the Board about lodging of the FIR.

3. Police Station, Katangi vide Crime No. 52/2012 lodged FIR against the petitionerSmt. Shakuntala Verma, Incharge of the examination centre of Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Katangi for offences under section 3D(2) of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937. Subsequently, chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, Jabalpur on 22-7-2014.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it is vehemently contended that the petitioner was discharging the her duty at the relevant time. No sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal has been obtained. There was no “mass-copying” as defined in Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal Kendra Nirikshankartaon Avam Udandaston Ke Liye Nirdesh, Pariksha Varsh, 2014 [for short “Instructions of 2014”], in which, directions have been issued what is “mass-copying” and how to handle the situation. It is also contended that primarily no names of the invigilators or the students who were allegedly involved in committing copying has been mentioned in the written complaint dated 5-3-2012. Nor the same is reflected in the F.I.R. It is also vehemently argued that the charges have been framed against the petitioners. Not having any evidence of “mass-copying” and no information was sent as per FormII prescribed under Instructions of 2014. The complainant A. K. Kaithwas, Divisional Officer of M.P. Higher Secondary Board, Jabalpur has not obtained any permission from the Competent Officer before lodging the First Information Report, though the Divisional Officer has mentioned in the complaint that he was directed by the Board to lodge the FIR, against the Incharge of the Examination Centre. This oral permission/sanction is not sufficient for prosecution of the case against the petitioner.

5. On behalf of the resp