The Gujarat High Court has held that instructions issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) to examination candidates cannot automatically be treated as an order under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While partly allowing a petition filed by two applicants, the Court quashed the charges under Section 188 IPC and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act but clarified that the investigation into any other applicable offences may continue.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered at Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, following a GPSC examination held in November 2018. According to the complaint, an invigilator noticed a candidate allegedly using a mobile phone inside the examination hall to take photographs of the question paper and send them through WhatsApp.
The candidate was allegedly found to have sent the images to his brother. Based on these allegations, the police registered offences under Sections 188 and 120-B of the IPC along with Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act. The applicants approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Court's Observations
Justice P. M. Raval examined whether the offences invoked in the FIR were legally sustainable.
On Section 188 IPC, the Court observed that the provision applies only when there is disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant. The Bench found that the GPSC's examination instructions could not be equated with such a promulgated order.
The Court observed,
"The GPSC has given instructions to the candidates attending the exam... this would not fall within the four corners of Section 188 of the IPC being a promulgation of an order."
The Court also noted that even if Section 188 were assumed to apply, prosecution under that provision could not proceed through an FIR because Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars courts from taking cognizance unless there is a written complaint by the competent public servant.
Turning to Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, the Bench held that the provision deals specifically with violation of a person's privacy by capturing or transmitting images of private body parts without consent.
The Court observed,
"The act of sending photograph through WhatsApp to his brother cannot be termed as an act of intentionally or knowingly capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of any person."
Accordingly, the Court concluded that Section 66-E was not attracted on the facts of the case.
Court's Decision
The High Court quashed the FIR only to the extent it invoked Section 188 of the IPC and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act against the applicants. However, it made it clear that the FIR itself would continue in respect of any other offences that the investigating officer may consider applicable during the course of the investigation.
The interim relief was vacated, and the rule was made absolute to that limited extent.
Case Details
Case Title: Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 8320 of 2022
Judge: Justice P. M. Raval
Decision Date: 16 June 2026
