An unlawful agreement to procure government employment for money cannot constitute a criminal offence.

The complainant alleged that in 1999 the petitioner offered to procure a government primary-teacher appointment for ₹70,000 and received ₹50,000.

After the appointment did not materialise, the petitioner allegedly gave assurances of other employment; the complainant sought repayment in 2007 and alleged that the petitioner refused on 23 March 2009.

The complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 423 of 2009 alleging offences under Sections 406, 418 and 468 IPC.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 245 CrPC for discharge, prompting this petition to quash that order.

The petitioner asserted that the complaint arose from an earlier land transaction between the parties.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of discharge should be quashed in light of the delay and the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC.

2. Whether the alleged agreement to procure government employment for money could sustain criminal prosecution where the agreement itself was unlawful.

Section 468 CrPC bars cognizance of offences after the applicable limitation period; for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, the period is three years.

Under the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62, the relevant date for computing limitation is the filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.

The Court also relied on Vijay Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2011) 1 PLJR 780, and Shiv Shankar Dubey v. State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 36447 of 2014 (13 September 2017), for the principle that an agreement to obtain government employment in exchange for money is unlawful and cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution; Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act treats agreements opposed to law or public policy as void.

The Court noted that the alleged transaction began in 1999 and the complaint was filed in 2009, and observed that Sections 406 and 418 IPC fell within the limitation bar discussed under Section 468 CrPC.

It stated the governing limitation rule from Sarah Mathew.

Independently, the allegation was that money had been paid to secure a government job—an arrangement the Court treated, following Vijay Sharma, as an unlawful agreement that could not be pursued through criminal prosecution.

The Court also noted that the allegation was unsupported by documents.

The operative order does not expressly state that the entire complaint or trial was quashed.