Patna HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Taking ₹3.5 Lakh To Secure Informant’s Son A Railway Job, Citing An “Immoral Contract”

The informant alleged that the petitioner and other accused took Rs. 3,50,000 and academic documents from him in exchange for securing his son a Group ‘D’ job with the Indian Railways. When no job was obtained and the money was not returned, co-accused Anil Kumar allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 25,000, which was dishonoured.

The petitioner sought to quash the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 25 November 2016, which rejected his discharge application concerning alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

He argued, among other things, that the alleged arrangement was an unenforceable immoral contract and that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process.

The proceedings involved alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, invoking the categories identified in paragraph 102 for quashing criminal proceedings, and on Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 887, in support of the contention that continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

The Court treated the alleged payment as an attempt to obtain a railway job through a deceitful arrangement and characterized the contract as immoral and unenforceable.

It also noted that no source of income had been shown to establish the informant’s capacity to pay the alleged substantial sum.

Considering these circumstances alongside the authorities cited by the petitioner, the Court found that continuing the proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process.

It expressly left open the continuation of proceedings against the co-accused.