Shahnaj Parveen @ Nasrin Bano and Ors vs The State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12801 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Shahnaj Parveen @ Nasrin Bano W/o Md. Jainul Abdin Resident of Village-
Sardarganj, P.S.- Dalsing Sarai, District- Samastipur.
2. Nageshwar Singh S/o of Late Ganesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
Mohamedpur Devpar, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
3. Jeenat Praveen W/o Naiyer Ajam Resident of Village- Moalvichak Nawda,
P.S.- Dalsing Sarai, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Kaushar Akhtar Khalil S/o Md. Akhtar Hussain Resident of Village- Chak
Bahauddin, P.S.- Dalsing Sarai, District- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 18253 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Shazia Daughter of Md. Masood Alam, Faridi Resident of Village -
Chakbahuddin, P.S.- Dalsing Sarai, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Kaushar Akhtar Khalil Son of Md. Akhtar Hussain Resident of Village -
Chak Bahauddin, P.S.- Dalsing Sarai, District - Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12801 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, Adv,
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 18253 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Cr. Misc. No. 12801 Of 2019
Heard the parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
2/11
2. The present quashing petition has been preferred
to quash the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned
A.C.J.M.-I, Dalsing Sarai, Samastipur in C.R. No. 51 of 2018,
whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and
other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant came to know about alleged irregularities and
embezzlement of Government money in the appointment of
Block and Panchayat Teachers. It is alleged that some of the
accused persons obtained appointment by changing their date
of birth, using incorrect educational certificates or by other
illegal means. It is further alleged that the petitioners, being
connected with the Panchayat authorities, assisted in such
illegal appointments and thereby caused loss to the
Government exchequer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the allegations against the petitioners are false and that the
ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. So far as
petitioner no. 1 namely Sahnaj Praveen @ Nasrin Bano is
concerned. It is submitted that she had contested the election

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
3/11
for the post of Mukhiya of Nawada Panchayat in the year 2006
in the name of Nasrin Bano, whereas her educational and other
documents stood in the name of Sahnaj Praveen. The identity
number and the name of her husband were the same in the
relevant records.
5. It is further submitted that the District Program
Officer (Establishment), Samastipur and the Block Education
Officer, Dalsing Sarai, in their reports dated 10.06.2017 and
03.12.2016, had also found that Sahnaj Praveen @ Nasrin
Bano is one and the same person.
6. So far as petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned,
the allegation is that they had appointed Braj Kishore Kumar as
a Panchayat Teacher, whose appointment was subsequently
canceled. The petitioners submit that they had never received
any cancellation order. On the contrary, the Block Education
Officer, Dalsing Sarai, by letter dated 04.04.2007, had found
his appointment to be valid and in accordance with the rules.
Braj Kishore Kumar joined as Panchayat Teacher on
02.05.2005 and continued to work till 24.08.2007, till he
resigned on his selection as a Block-level Teacher.
7. It is also submitted that one of the learned co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
4/11
ordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the criminal
proceedings against similarly alleged co-accused through Cr.
Misc. No. 59074 of 2018, Cr. Misc. No. 57891 of 2018, Cr.
Misc. No. 59671 of 2018, Cr. Misc. No. 62679 of 2018 and
Cr. Misc. No. 1348 of 2019 dated 24.08.2026.
8. Learned APP opposed the prayer of the
petitioners.
9. Having considered the submissions and the
materials available on record, this Court finds that the
allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 420 IPC. For an offence of cheating,
there must be deception and dishonest or fraudulent
inducement. In the present case, there is no specific allegation
showing that the petitioners deceived any person or dishonestly
induced any person to deliver any property or to do or omit to
do anything.
10. The allegations regarding irregularities in the
appointment of teachers, by themselves, would not constitute
an offence under Section 420 IPC unless the basic ingredients
of cheating are made out against the petitioners.
11. The materials relating to petitioner no.1 also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
5/11
show that Sahnaj Praveen and Nasrin Bano were found to be
the same person by the concerned authorities. Similarly, the
materials relating to Braj Kishore Kumar do not support the
allegation that his appointment was illegally made by the
petitioners.
12. The fact that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has already quashed the criminal proceeding against the co-
accused arising out of the same set of allegations also supports
the case of the petitioners.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 , has laid down certain illustrative categories in which
the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court.
14. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
paragraph no. 102 of the Apex Court decision in the case of
Bhajan Lal case (supra) , which reads as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
6/11
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of nay offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
7/11
grudge.”
15. The allegations made in the complaint, even if
taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the
offence alleged against the petitioners and the materials on
record do not make out a case for proceeding against them.
Hence, by taking note of guidelines nos. 1,3 & 5 of Bhajan
Lal Case (supra) , this Court is of considered view that the
present case is fit to be quashed and set aside.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
17. Accordingly, the order dated 13.07.2018 passed
by the learned A.C.J.M.-I, Dalsing Sarai, Samastipur, qua all
above-named petitioners is hereby quashed/ set aside, with all
its consequential proceedings.
18. The application stands allowed.
Cr. Misc. No. 18253 Of 2019
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been preferred
to quash the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned
A.C.J.M.-I, Dalsing Sarai, Samastipur in C.R. No. 51 of 2018,
whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
8/11
other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioner, in substance,
is that she had falsely represented that she had passed the
Matriculation Examination as well as the B.A. Examination,
whereas, according to the complainant, she had failed in the
said examinations and had obtained only 245 marks in the B.A.
Examination against the required 350 marks.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations are wholly false and have been made with an
ulterior motive. It has been explained that the petitioner
appeared in the Annual Secondary School Examination
conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board in the year
1996. In the History subject, she obtained 5 marks out of 50
marks and, therefore, could not pass the said subject in the
Annual Examination. However, she appeared in the
Supplementary Secondary School Examination in the same
year and obtained 19 marks out of 50 marks in History and
was thereafter declared successful. It has further been
submitted that the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board itself reflects that the petitioner appeared in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
9/11
both the Annual and Supplementary Examinations.
5. So far as the allegation regarding the marks
obtained in the B.A. Examination is concerned, the petitioner
has stated that she passed B.A. Honours in Urdu in First
Division from Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University,
having secured 485 marks out of 800 marks. The original
marks sheet contained a typographical/tabulation error,
whereby the total marks were initially shown as 245. The error
was subsequently corrected and the total marks of 485 out of
800 have been reflected both in figures and in words in the
corrected marks sheet.
6. Learned App opposed the prayer of the Petitioner.
7. On consideration of the allegations made in the
complaint and the documents relied upon by the petitioner, this
Court finds that the basic allegations against the petitioner are
prima facie contrary to the documentary material placed on
record. The record shows that the petitioner had, in fact,
appeared in the Supplementary Examination and thereafter
passed the Matriculation Examination. Similarly, the
discrepancy in the B.A. marks appears to have been a mistake
in the marks sheet which was subsequently corrected, showing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
10/11
485 marks out of 800.
8. In these circumstances, the essential ingredients
of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are
not disclosed from the allegations made in the complaint. Mere
incorrect recording of marks, particularly when the mistake has
subsequently been corrected, cannot by itself constitute the
offence of cheating in the absence of the necessary ingredients
of deception and dishonest or fraudulent inducement from the
inception.
9. This Court also finds that the criminal proceeding
has been initiated against the petitioner with an ulterior motive
and its continuance would serve no useful purpose. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the
guiding principles 1,3 ,5 & 7 of the Bhajan Lal Case (Supra)
this Court is satisfied that the present case falls within the
parameters of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and is fit
to be quashed and set-aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 13.07.2018 passed
by the learned A.C.J.M.-I, Dalsing Sarai, Samastipur, is hereby
quashed/ set aside, with all its consequential proceedings.
11. The application stands allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
11/11
12. Let the copy of both the judgments be
communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if
any.


(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026.
Transmission Date 02.09.2026.