The Court held that there was enough material for trial and rejected his plea under Section 482 CrPC.
The earlier judgments relied on by him were found inapplicable.
The criminal case before the trial court will now continue.
Case Background
A criminal case was registered as Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010 in Patna.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by an officer of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
The FIR alleged that a racket was operating which took money from unemployed youths by promising them jobs in government institutions.
During investigation, the police treated the matter as a job scam involving several accused persons.
After investigation they submitted charge-sheet and the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, took cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
On 9.9.2014, the Magistrate passed the cognizance order in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010.
The present petitioner, Binit Kumar Sinha, was not named in the original FIR.
However, during investigation, his name surfaced as one of the persons allegedly involved in collecting money from job seekers.
On the basis of the case diary and statements of victims, he was also made an accused.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50398 of 2014.
He filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 9.9.2014.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
The Court heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate, with assisting counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Shailendra Kumar-1, A.P.P., for the State of Bihar.
The key question was whether the High Court should use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the cognizance taken against the petitioner.
The petitioner’s side argued that his name did not appear in the FIR.
They stressed that the FIR had been filed by an Inspector of the CISF and not by any alleged victim who had paid money for a job.
On this basis, counsel contended that the subsequent implication of the petitioner was mala fide and without basis.
According to the petitioner, he was not part of any racket.
Rather, he claimed to be himself a victim of job fraud.
To support this, he relied on a bank pay-in-slip showing that Rs. 45,000/- in cash had been deposited in the account of one Ajay Kumar, who was alleged by the police to be a main accused in the racket.
The petitioner asserted that this deposit represented money he had paid to Ajay Kumar for securing employment, and therefore he stood on the same footing as other cheated persons.
The petitioner further pointed out that he had obtained employment in a private company in the year 2013.
He claimed that when he asked Ajay Kumar to return his money after getting this job, he was falsely implicated in the criminal case as a counterblast.
Thus, the narrative put forward was that he was dragged into the case only because he demanded his money back.
To strengthen his plea, the petitioner relied on three earlier decisions of the Patna High Court:
He cited Vijay Sharma vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2011 (1) PLJR 780.
He also relied on Manju Devi vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2017 (2) PLJR 560, and Ashutosh Mishra vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2017 (3) PLJR 152.
In those cases, the Court had held that where a person voluntarily pays money as a bribe for an illegal purpose of securing a government job, such a person cannot later claim to have been cheated.
The reasoning in those judgments was that one who himself participates in an illegal transaction to get a job by corrupt means cannot take the benefit of criminal law when the deal goes against him.
Based on these rulings, the petitioner argued that the criminal case itself was not maintainable because the complainants had also engaged in an illegal act.
In essence, he wanted the High Court to apply the same principle and quash the cognizance order against him.
On the other side, the learned A.P.P. opposed the application by referring to the case diary.
He submitted that the petitioner’s defence was totally misconceived.
The State pointed out that the investigation had clearly revealed that the petitioner was one of the persons who collected money from unemployed youths by promising them jobs in government institutions.
The prosecution drew attention to specific paragraphs of the case diary.
Victims Amrit Sagar (paragraph no. 201) and Sanjay Ram (paragraph no. 205) had given statements to the police.
They stated that the petitioner was present when money was handed over by them to a co-accused in return for the promise of government jobs.
This, according to the State, showed the petitioner’s active role in the racket.
Regarding the pay-in-slip for Rs. 45,000/-, the A.P.P. argued that the document did not show who had actually deposited the cash.
Therefore, it could not be accepted at this stage that the petitioner himself had made the deposit as a victim.
The prosecution maintained that this document did not support his plea of innocence or victimhood.
After considering the rival submissions and the material available, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioner’s application.
The Judge first noted that the petitioner had not been accused by any victim directly of taking money from them and failing to provide jobs or return the money.
Instead, the case had originated from an FIR lodged by the CISF, which had exposed a broader illegal activity.
The Court emphasised that the FIR was based on information about a racket where several persons collected money from unemployed youths under the false promise of government employment.
During investigation, the police unearthed the full racket, identified the accused persons, and then submitted charge-sheet.
In this context, the fact that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the initial FIR was held to be of no consequence.
Turning to the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner, the Court drew a clear distinction.
In Vijay Sharma, Manju Devi and Ashutosh Mishra, the criminal proceedings had been initiated directly by persons who themselves had paid money to obtain government jobs through illegal means.
In those circumstances, the Court had refused to allow such persons, who had themselves committed illegality by offering bribe, to take the benefit of criminal law by claiming that they had been cheated.
However, the present case was different.
Here, the FIR did not come from a bribe giver.
It was lodged by the CISF after uncovering a job racket, and the accused were the alleged collectors of money.
The petitioner, according to the prosecution case and case diary statements, was on the side of the collectors, not the victims.
The Court noted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he collected money from persons seeking government employment, promising to get them such jobs.
Witnesses had also stated that money was handed over to the co-accused in his presence.
The Judge described this as collection of money “by way of illegal gratification” on the promise of providing jobs in government institutions.
Because of this factual background, the Court held that the three earlier decisions relied upon by the defence had no application.
Those judgments dealt with persons who had given money as bribe and later claimed cheating.
Here, the accused was alleged to be on the other side of the transaction.
The Court then examined the petitioner’s claim that he himself had paid Rs. 45,000/- to Ajay Kumar in April 2009 and that he was a victim.
Annexure-2, the ICICI Bank pay-in-slip, was considered.
The slip showed that Rs. 45,000/- in cash had been deposited in Ajay Kumar’s account on 15th April, 2009.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that this payment had been made by the petitioner, the Court found several problems with his story.
First, there was no explanation why he waited for four years before allegedly demanding his money back from Ajay Kumar, especially when he secured employment only in 2013.
There was no averment that he had ever made any complaint before any authority during this long period about non-return of the money or failure to provide a job.
Secondly, the Court compared the timing of key events.
The FIR was lodged in January 2010.
The police carried out investigation and recorded statements during 2011.
The petitioner obtained employment only in 2013.
Therefore, by the time he got the job, the FIR had already been registered and the police had already recorded statements, including those implicating him.
In this situation, the Court held that the petitioner’s later employment in 2013 could not be connected to the alleged payment of money in 2009.
The sequence of events made his defence story unreliable and “worthless”.
Further, the pay-in-slip itself did not identify who deposited the cash, so it did not directly support his claim of being a victim.
Considering all these aspects together, the Court concluded that there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner.
At the stage of cognizance and considering an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court was not required to hold a full trial or appreciate evidence in detail.
The material in the case diary and the nature of allegations were enough to justify the Magistrate’s order.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed the application.
The cognizance order dated 9.9.2014 in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010 remained intact, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were allowed to continue before the trial court.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who get involved, knowingly or unknowingly, in job rackets promising government employment.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that if investigation and witness statements show a person’s role in collecting money, the Court will not lightly quash the case under Section 482 CrPC.
The decision also shows that not being named in the original FIR does not automatically protect an accused.
If his name surfaces during investigation and the police collect statements against him, he can still be charge-sheeted and tried.
The Court has further clarified that earlier rulings, where complainants who paid bribes were denied relief, cannot be used by alleged members of a job racket to escape prosecution.
Those judgments protect neither the bribe taker nor the middleman.
For unemployed youths in Bihar, the case underlines the risk of paying money for promised government jobs.
Such payments are illegal, and those who run such schemes can face serious criminal charges under the IPC.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Should the Patna High Court quash the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC in a government job racket case, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC?
Answer: No. The Court held that investigation material and witness statements showed the petitioner’s alleged role in collecting money, the absence of his name in the FIR was irrelevant, the defence about being a victim was unconvincing, and the precedents cited did not apply. Hence, the application was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Vijay Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 2011 (1) PLJR 780.
- Manju Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (2) PLJR 560.
- Ashutosh Mishra vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (3) PLJR 152.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50398 of 2014, arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010, District Patna.
Case Title: Binit Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 508.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay and Mr. Anjan Singh, Advocates. For the State – Mr. Shailendra Kumar-1, A.P.P.
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of cognizance order in a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code relating to a government job racket.
Date of Judgment: 02-04-2019.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
