The Patna High Court set aside a cognizance order under Sections 406, 423 and 504 IPC where the alleged offence stemmed from payment for an illegal government job, holding that no entrustment of property existed and the prosecution was mala fide, thus an abuse of the court’s process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, Md. Ali Ansari, alleged that he paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner, Md. Yasin @ Md. Yaseen, on 24.04.2011 for securing an appointment as a teacher in the Education Department for his son. Despite the payment, no appointment letter was provided and the money was not returned. The complainant further alleged assault, abuse and criminal intimidation by the petitioner when he demanded the refund.
Key Facts
- The alleged transaction occurred on 24.04.2011 when the complainant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner.
- The complaint was filed on 21.03.2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari (Complaint Case No. 637-C of 2013).
- The complaint alleged offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 423 (dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East Champaran at Motihari, vide order dated 28.06.2016, took cognizance of the said offences and directed issuance of process against the petitioner for his appearance to face trial.
- The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the cognizance order as bad in law.
- The judgment under analysis was delivered on 13.10.2026.
Procedural History
- 21.03.2013: Complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari (CC No. 637-C/2013).
- 28.06.2016: Order of cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East Champaran, Motihari, directing issuance of process.
- Post-28.06.2016: Petitioner filed the present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC before the Patna High Court.
- 13.10.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rana Vikram Singh.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 28.06.2016 be quashed and set aside, and that all criminal proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No. 637-C of 2013 be likewise quashed and set aside, invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, for an illegal purpose, giving any amount to any person would constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal breach of trust) or whether the essential ingredient of ‘entrustment’ is absent when the underlying agreement is for an illegal object.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the complaint discloses no entrustment of property as required by Section 405 IPC; the payment was made for an illegal purpose (procuring a government job by money) and thus no valid trust could arise. It was further submitted that the allegations are vague, omnibus and fail to establish dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Chellor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri v. State of Travancore-Cochin and Vijay Sharma and Anr. v. State of Bihar to show that payment for an illegal appointment does not attract Sections 405/406 IPC. The petitioner also argued that the proceeding is mala fide and an abuse of the court’s process.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the opposite party submitted that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the materials on record and that a prima facie case under Sections 406, 423 and 504 IPC is made out. They argued that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and that the petitioner should be left to face trial. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized that the complaint discloses a dispute arising out of alleged payment for securing a teacher’s job and that the Magistrate rightly took cognizance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the ingredients of Section 405 IPC, which defines criminal breach of trust, and Section 406 IPC which prescribes punishment therefor. It held that for Section 405 to apply, there must be (a) entrustment of property or dominion over property, (b) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property, and (c) such misappropriation must be in violation of any legal direction or contract governing the trust. The Court found that the alleged payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made for an illegal purpose - procuring a government appointment by money - which is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, no valid entrustment could exist because the owner parts with property for an illegal object, and the doctrine of entrustment has no application when the underlying purpose is contrary to law. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and ought to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. The Court further noted that the allegations of assault and abuse were vague and omnibus, insufficient to sustain Sections 323 and 504 IPC. Thus, the entire criminal proceeding was deemed unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
The Verdict
The impugned order dated 28.06.2016, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 423 and 504 IPC was taken against the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all criminal proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No. 637-C of 2013 (Tr. No. 6980 of 2015) are also quashed and set aside. No monetary compensation or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Entrustment for Illegal Purpose
Where money is paid for an illegal object (such as purchasing a government job), the transaction does not create a legally recognised entrustment, and therefore Sections 405/406 IPC cannot be invoked.
Agreement for Illegal Purpose Void
Any agreement whose consideration or object is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and cannot found a criminal breach of trust.
Mala Fide Prosecution Amenable to Inherent Jurisdiction
If a criminal proceeding is manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings at the threshold to prevent abuse of process.
Vague Allegations Insufficient
Allegations of assault, abuse or criminal intimidation that are vague, omnibus and lack specific particulars cannot sustain offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC without concrete evidence.
