JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing. 1. The present petition filed u/Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks quashment of Annexure-P/1, dated 3/6/2017 by which petitioner who was pursuing MBBS course after being admitted to the same through M.P. Pre-Medical Test 2008, has suffered rustication at the hands of the Dean Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior on the ground that he is arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 449/2013 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC & Sec. 3/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937 by Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior with the allegation that being candidate he made arrangement for impersonator/solver to appear in his place in the said examination and thus has sought admission by playing fraud. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission primarily submits that the CBI has filed charge-sheet where though petitioner is an accused but the evidence collected by prosecution is not tenable as the implication is solely based upon confessional statement made u/s. 27 of Evidence Act which as per the established principles of criminal jurisprudence is an inadmissible piece of evidence especially when the said statement has not led to discovery of any incriminating material. 2.1. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Coordinate bench decision rendered at the principal seat at Jabalpur on 16/10/2014 in a bunch of petitions including WP 8372/2014 (Nikita Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & others) to submit that mere pendency of criminal prosecution cannot deprive petitioner of his right to pursue MBBS course. 2.2. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner may ostensibly appear to be attractive but in actuality is not. This court, in this petition, cannot go into veracity and tenability of criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, which is the exclusive domain of the court of competent criminal jurisdiction. Whether the evidence collected by prosecution is untenable or inadmissible in evidence is not for this court to dwell upon. 2.3. The decision of Division bench relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner rendered on 16/10/2014 in Nikita Saxena (supra) at the principal seat has lost its relevance and significance and also its precedential value after the authoritative verdict pronounced by Apex court in Nidhi Kaim Vs. 2.3. The decision of Division bench relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner rendered on 16/10/2014 in Nikita Saxena (supra) at the principal seat has lost its relevance and significance and also its precedential value after the authoritative verdict pronounced by Apex court in Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (2016) 7 SCC 615 , relevant paras of the judgment (A.M. Sapre, J.) are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:- "117. This takes me to the next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, namely, that since there was inordinate delay in taking the decision to cancel the examination and in the meantime the appellants have altered their position by completing their degree course, or are about to complete the Course in near future and hence, this Court should protect the appellants' interest on equitable considerations. I do not agree. 118. The issue of somewhat similar nature was examined by this Court in Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 311 . In this case, the facts were that in the year 1984, Mr. Mahendra Pratap Yadav (respondent 3 therein) appeared as private candidate in intermediate examination conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Mr. Yadav's result was withheld as a suspected case of using unfair means in the examination. He was, however, issued two provisional mark sheets. In one mark sheet, it was mentioned that his result is withheld (WB) whereas in other it was not. Mr. Yadav on the basis of provisional marks-sheet, which did not mention withholding of his result, took admission in B.A. and cleared the examination. He also thereafter cleared M.A. examination. He was then selected as a teacher. In the year 1993, an inquiry was made pursuant to which he was informed in 1996 that his intermediate examination result, which was held in the year 1984, is cancelled. 119. Challenging the cancellation of his result, Mr. He also thereafter cleared M.A. examination. He was then selected as a teacher. In the year 1993, an inquiry was made pursuant to which he was informed in 1996 that his intermediate examination result, which was held in the year 1984, is cancelled. 119. Challenging the cancellation of his result, Mr. Yadav filed writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad on three grounds: Firstly, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before his result was cancelled; Secondly, the cancellation of the result was done after almost 10 years and hence, it is wholly arbitrary; and Thirdly, since in the meantime, he cleared BA and MA Examinations with good percentage and secured employment as a teacher, the cancellation of his intermediate examination result is bad in law. 120 A learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that since Mr. Yadav has successfully cleared BA and MA Examinations and has also secured employment due to his brilliant performance in BA and MA Examinations, why should his career be ruined. It was on these grounds, his writ petition was allowed and cancellation of his result was set aside. The appeal filed by the Board and the institute against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed and hence, the Board carried the matter in appeal to this Court. 121 This Court allowed the appeal and while rejecting the aforementioned three grounds of challenge, set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition. This Court while rejecting the submissions placed reliance on earlier decision of this Court rendered in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 236 and quoted para 2 of Madhyamic Shiksha Mondal's case (supra) in support of their reasoning which reads as under:- "2. We feel a little distressed that in matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board ........................ In the face of this material, we do not see any justification in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the student community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions. That cannot be helped. It is unfortunate that the student community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent students from those indulging in malpractices. One may feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available to it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to the students that such malpractices will not help them succeed in the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those in charge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisors/Invigilators, etc., who either permit such activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the services of the Uniformed Personnel, if need be, and ensure that students do not indulge in such malpractices." 122. This Court then equated the incident of this nature with fraud played by the candidate and held in Paras 13, 14 and 26 of Ram Preeti Yadav's case which read as under: "13. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. (See Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14 AC 337) 14. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341, the Court of Appeal stated the law thus: (All ER p. 345 C-D) " ...... I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever ....." xxxxxx 26. Further, we find that there is no equity in favour of Respondent 3, inasmuch as he knew that his result had been withheld because of the allegation of having used unfair means in the examination. Suppressing this fact, he took admission in BA and studied further." 123. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the case at hand, I find that the appellants are not entitled to claim any equitable relief on the ground that they have almost completed their course during the interregnum period and hence, no action on the basis of their PMT Examination results is called for. 124. In my view, when in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav (supra), the decision to cancel the result was taken after 10 years of the examination in which he had appeared and in the meantime, he had also completed his higher studies and secured an employment yet this Court was not impressed by such submission and rejected it in express terms. So is the case here where delay in cancellation of the result is less as compared to the case of Mr. Yadav. That apart, the case at hand prima facie established a case of "mass copying" attributable to the appellants who resorted to unfair means in a planned way in the PMT examination and lastly, when any action is done discretely, it takes times to discover. 3. Consequently, this court is afraid that no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted and therefore the present petition stands dismissed, sans cost.