Patna High Court – Orders
Priyanka @ Priyanka Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42979 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-460 Year-2009 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
======================================================
Priyanka @ Priyanka Kumari, daughter of Sri Jai Ram Singh, resident of
Mohalla/P.O.-Gonawan, P.S.-Nawada (Town), District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 19-08-2025
Heard Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Allegedly the petitioner got benefited
by drawing fixed pay prescribed for the Shiksha Mitra from
01.07.2005 till 29.02.2008 in connivance with all the members
of the appointing unit of Gram Panchayat Gonawan, Nawada.
The matter was inquired into on the basis of a complaint dated
18.08.2008 made by a local MLA. On the basis of preliminary
inquiry, Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 460 of 2009 was lodged on
11.12.2009 against the Mukhiya, Panchayat Sachiv, Block
Education Officer including the petitioner under Sections 409,
419, 420, 120B and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order
taking cognizance dated 01.05.2014 passed by the learned Chief
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42979 of 2016(5) dt.19-08-2025
2/6
Judicial Magistrate, Nawada.
4. I have perused the allegation made in the F.I.R and
the revised guidelines issued in the year 2004 for the
appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The scheme of Shiksha Mitra
was repealed and the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers
(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Rules 2006’) came into effect. All the Shiksha
Mitra were absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and they were treated as
Panchayat Teacher / Niyojit Teacher. The record is silent, as to
whether, the petitioner was also absorbed as Panchayat Teacher /
Niyojit Teacher. The petitioner is holding M.B.A. degree which
has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 series. The
petitioner has given information that to get rid of the criminal
prosecution, she had deposited a sum of Rs. 96500/- on
28.03.2016, in light of the order dated 05.02.2016 passed in Cr.
Misc No. 48399/2015.
5. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the record, it
reveals that the petitioner was allegedly appointed as Shiksha
Mitra on 05.06.2005 and the appointment letter was issued to
the petitioner on 30.11.2007, which bears the joint signature of
the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sachiv of the Gonawan Gram
Panchayat. On the basis of said appointment letter, an amount of
Rs.96,500/- was allegedly paid to the petitioner vide Cheque
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42979 of 2016(5) dt.19-08-2025
3/6
No. 602276 dated 13.03.2008 on account of Honorarium from
01.07.2005 to 29.02.2008.
6. I find that the scheme of Shiksha Mitra came to an
end after coming into force of Rules, 2006 and pursuant to
Rules, 2006, all the Shiksha Mitra were absorbed as Panchayat
Teacher / Niyojit Teacher from 01.07.2006.
7. It is well settled that a complaint may be quashed
where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where
the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
8. It is well settled that the Court should sparingly
exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC. In case of
Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs Sudha Seetharam & Anr.,
(Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018), wherein the Apex Court held
that a court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if
on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the
ingredients necessary for the offence. The observations are as
under:
“10. Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court to
make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice. In
Indian Oil Corp. v NEPC India Ltd.5, a two judge Bench of
this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42979 of 2016(5) dt.19-08-2025
4/6following terms:
“12….
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in 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 the case alleged
against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of
the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability
or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where
it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with
mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause
harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however,
be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The
power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to
verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the 5 (2006) 6 SCC 736 ground that a
few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary
for making out the offence.
(v)…
11 The High Court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in
the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an
offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments
taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients
necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be
quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be
quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not
disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal
Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without
evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law
does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must
contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence
under the Penal Code.
12. The first respondent has alleged in the
complaint that the appellants have committed offences
under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42979 of 2016(5) dt.19-08-2025
5/6
of the Penal Code. It would thus be necessary to examine
the ingredients of the above offences and whether the
allegations made in the complaint, read on their face,
attract those offences under the Penal Code.
15. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing deliver of
property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable to being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.” The ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i) A person must commit the offence of cheating
under Section 415; and
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced
to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security
or anything signed or sealed and capable of
being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute
an offence under Section 420.
16. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must
examine if on their face, the averments made in the
complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the
offence.”
9. In the background of the facts and allegation made
against the petitioner, prima facie, it appears that there was no
reason for making payment for the post / scheme which was no
more in existence. The petitioner who allegedly got benefited
monetarily had already returned back the entire amount of
Rs.96,500/- in light of the order dated 05.02.2016 passed in Cr.
Misc No. 48399/2015.
10. It is equally well settled that a criminal proceeding
can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42979 of 2016(5) dt.19-08-2025
6/6
not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code.
The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating
the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require
that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary
for making out an offence under the Penal Code. Considering
the above mentioned facts and circumstances and discussions
made hereinabove, the entire criminal proceeding against the
petitioner in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 460
of 2009 pending in the Court of CJM, Nawada is hereby set
aside and quashed.
11. Accordingly, continuation of criminal proceeding
against the petitioner being vexatious in nature will be abuse of
process of the Court so far as the petitioner is concerned also set
aside and quashed.
12. The present quashing application stands disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T