Back
'Chilling Trend': Allahabad HC Rejects Plea to Quash FIR in ₹22L Fake PhD and Job Scam
In a scathing rebuke to societal shortcuts, the has dismissed a petition by Priyanka Singh Sengar seeking to quash an FIR accusing her and family members of a brazen fraud. The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena refused interference under , emphasizing that such cases demand thorough police investigation to combat eroding public morality.
From Job Dreams to Forged Promises
Tanya Dixit, the complainant, alleged she was lured by Vikram Singh Sengar, his mother Tripti, sister Sanya, and friend Priyanka Sengar—petitioner here—with boasts of high-level connections in government and universities. Promising swift PhD admission at , and an Assistant Professor post at , despite no applications from Dixit, they extracted ₹22.18 lakh via UPI, RTGS, and cash between .
The accused handed over fake documents: a PhD degree, marksheet, admission letter, topic approval, and even an appointment letter directing Dixit to join on . When Dixit confronted them over the impossibly quick PhD (enrollment in 2024 yielding a degree in months), they demanded ₹3 lakh more, threatening ruin otherwise. Verification at CSJM revealed forgeries; threats of death and false cases followed. The FIR under ensued on , at .
As reported in legal circles, this mirrors a rising scam wave targeting job aspirants' desperation, with the victim—an educated woman—falling prey to perceived "corrupt efficacy."
Petitioner's Parity Plea vs State's Firm Stand
Priyanka's counsel, , urged quashing, citing interim relief to co-accused Sanya (mediation referral) and Tripti (conditional refund stay) via prior single-judge and division bench orders. These were argued as similarly situated, warranting parity.
The Additional Government Advocate opposed, highlighting the FIR's gravity. The bench dismissed parity claims, noting prior orders were " ," unfit for precedent.
Why Courts Won't Shield Alleged Forgers
The judges dissected the fraud's mechanics: PhDs and university jobs follow strict rules—advertisements, applications, rigorous processes—not backdoor bribes. Yet, the bench lamented,
"the faith of the common man in the efficacy of corrupt ways has led the first informant to be duped."
No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling underscores 's restraint in quashing FIRs where allegations disclose , mandating probe over preemptive halt.
Court's Unflinching Observations
Key remarks from the judgment cut deep:
"The allegations... disclose a very chilling trend in society , where the common man has developed a perception that anything can be done by the payment of a bribe ."
" It shows a very low state of moral fibre in society and crimes of this kind, to regain and restore some morality in society, must not go unpunished ."
"These [allegations] require to be thoroughly and honestly investigated by the Police ."
"Admission to a Ph.D. Course or appointment to a University cannot be done except through the procedure prescribed under rules."
The court clarified: allegations aren't presumed true, but their nature bars interference.
No Escape, Probe Ordered
Petition dismissed. The order, dated , directs communication to and SHO via the for diligent investigation. Implications? Reinforces FIR sanctity in fraud cases; signals zero tolerance for education scams exploiting aspirations. Future petitioners in similar binds face uphill battles, prioritizing societal cleanup over interim relief.
This ruling spotlights a moral crisis, urging vigilance against "bribe-for-anything" illusions.
