Case Background
A complaint case was filed in the district of Gopalganj, registered as Complaint Case No. 1942(C) of 2013, arising out of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 1942 of 2013. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, took money from him and from other people on the promise of providing them a B.Ed certificate.
According to the complaint, after taking the money, the accused persons did not provide any B.Ed certificate, nor did they return the money. On this basis, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gopalganj, by order dated 19.12.2014, took cognizance of offences under Sections 417, 418 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. The case proceeded as Trial No. 551 of 2016.
Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance order, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42964 of 2016 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 19.12.2014, so far as it related to him.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh, heard the matter on 04.09.2025. The Court heard Mr. Satyendra Rai for the petitioner and Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, learned APP, for the State of Bihar.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was innocent and that no offence was made out against him under Sections 417, 418 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that the complainant’s entire intention was mala fide, as he sought to procure a B.Ed degree by illegal means, allegedly in connivance with a co-accused, Lal Prakash Tiwary.
According to the petitioner, he was a government school teacher who had since retired. The defence claimed that the complaint was a frivolous accusation made with an oblique motive. It was highlighted that the alleged arrangement between the complainant and the co-accused Lal Prakash Tiwary was a void contract, as it related to obtaining a B.Ed certificate through unlawful means.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the complainant had not produced any proof to support the alleged payment of money. No source of funds or mode of payment was verified in the complaint. There was no documentary or other evidence of any payment made to the petitioner.
It was further argued that the complainant had failed to show any kind of communication with the petitioner. According to the defence, there was not a single call, message, WhatsApp communication, email or any other form of contact between the complainant and the petitioner mentioned in the record. On this basis, counsel argued that the allegations against the petitioner were highly improbable and frivolous.
The petitioner’s side also raised a point regarding Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cheating by personation, to emphasize what constitutes cheating. It was argued that for such an offence, it must be shown that the accused induced someone to deliver property by dishonestly impersonating another person. In the present complaint, there was no allegation that the petitioner had impersonated anyone or that any payment was made due to such impersonation.
Though the cognizance in this case was taken under Sections 417, 418 and 403 IPC, the petitioner’s counsel used the legal understanding of cheating by personation to argue that there was no dishonest inducement by the petitioner at all. The complainant nowhere stated that he was induced by any act or representation of the petitioner to pay money for the B.Ed certificate.
Another important submission was that the very nature of the transaction was itself illegal. The complaint suggested that money was being paid for procuring a B.Ed certificate in an unlawful manner. The petitioner’s counsel contended that when an agreement itself is an offence under the Indian Penal Code, and that criminal act fails, the agreement cannot form the basis of a valid claim. In other words, an unlawful agreement cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution against a person who is not directly party to the illegal bargain.
On the other side, the learned APP for the State opposed the quashing application. The State argued that sufficient material had been collected during investigation, and that the Judicial Magistrate had applied his mind while taking cognizance under Sections 417, 418 and 403 IPC. Therefore, according to the State, the criminal proceeding should continue.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Patna High Court turned to the nature of the agreement and the allegations made. The Court noted that the complainant, Birendra Kumar Pandey, had entered into a contract with co-accused Lal Prakash Tiwary to obtain a B.Ed degree in an illegal manner. The Court clearly characterized this contract as a void contract.
The Court observed that, so far as the petitioner was concerned, the complaint appeared frivolous and represented a malicious prosecution. The main material against the petitioner, as found by the Court, was that he had introduced both parties who intended to use the law for an illegal purpose. There was no clear allegation or proof that the petitioner himself had taken money, or that he was directly part of the unlawful bargain beyond this introduction.
To support its reasoning, the Court relied on settled legal principles regarding unlawful and immoral contracts. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 4. In that case, the Supreme Court explained Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which declares that the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law, or if the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Any agreement with unlawful consideration or object is void.
The Patna High Court reproduced paragraph 7 of Gherulal Parakh, where it was made clear that if the object of an agreement is unlawful or immoral, the agreement itself is void. Applying this principle, the Court treated the arrangement to obtain a B.Ed degree through payment of money as an unlawful contract.
The Court then referred to its own earlier decisions adopting similar reasoning. These included:
- Vijay Sharma and Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2011(1) PLJR 780;
- Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2017(2) PLJR 560;
- Narender Prasad Pandey vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2019) SCC Online Pat 403;
- Prahlad Rai and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar in Cr. Misc. No. 6097 of 2015, order dated 15.05.2019.
The Court also relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., reported in (2024) 3 SCC 601. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of that judgment, reproduced by the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court described a similar situation where money had been paid to secure a job, which was itself an unlawful arrangement.
In Deepak Kumar Shrivas, the Supreme Court observed that such transactions form an “unlawful contract” and that even civil remedies for recovery of such money may not be sustainable. The Supreme Court noted that when both parties are involved in unethical or possibly criminal conduct, the use of criminal proceedings merely to recover tainted money amounts to misuse of the process.
Drawing from these authorities, the Patna High Court concluded that the underlying agreement in the present case was unlawful from the very beginning. The Court held that the proper question of such a contract’s maintainability should, in any event, be decided in appropriate civil proceedings, not through criminal prosecution, especially against someone whose role was limited to introduction of parties.
Importantly, the Court held that allowing the petitioner to face criminal prosecution on the basis of this void and illegal agreement would amount to abuse of the process of the court. The criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tool to settle disputes arising out of an unlawful bargain.
On this reasoning, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It set aside and quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1942(C) of 2013 (Trial No. 551 of 2016), as well as the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2014, so far as the petitioner was concerned. The quashing application was accordingly disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for people who get involved in illegal shortcuts, such as paying money to secure degrees or jobs. The Patna High Court has made it clear that such arrangements are unlawful contracts from the very beginning.
If someone chooses to enter into such an illegal arrangement and it fails, they cannot easily turn around and use the criminal process to recover the money or to harass another person, especially where their own hands are unclean. The Court has shown that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to pressure others in disputes that arise from void and immoral contracts.
The decision also protects individuals who are drawn into a situation only on the allegation that they introduced parties. Without clear allegations and proof of dishonest or criminal involvement, such persons should not have to undergo a full criminal trial.
For laypersons, the message is straightforward: paying money for illegal advantages, such as fake degrees or backdoor jobs, is itself wrong. If the deal fails, the law may not support recovery through criminal prosecution, and both sides may be blamed for their role in the illegal act.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can criminal proceedings for cheating and misappropriation be sustained when the underlying agreement itself is unlawful and void, and the main allegation against the petitioner is only that he introduced the parties?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the agreement to procure a B.Ed degree illegally was a void and unlawful contract. Using such an agreement as the base for criminal prosecution against the petitioner, whose involvement was limited and whose prosecution appeared malicious, would amount to abuse of process. The proceedings and cognizance order were therefore quashed as against him.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 4.
- Vijay Sharma and Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2011(1) PLJR 780.
- Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2017(2) PLJR 560.
- Narender Prasad Pandey vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2019) SCC Online Pat 403.
- Prahlad Rai and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 6097 of 2015, order dated 15.05.2019.
- Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 601.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42964 of 2016
Arising out of: Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 1942 of 2013; Complaint Case No. 1942(C) of 2013; Trial No. 551 of 2016
Case Title: Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi @ Chandra Shekhar Dubey vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 244
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2025
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyendra Rai, Advocate
- For the State/Opposite Party: Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, APP
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cognizance order and entire criminal proceeding in a complaint case alleging cheating and misappropriation relating to an unlawful B.Ed certificate arrangement.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
