The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 and the concept of cheating in cases involving illegal contracts were analyzed, emphasizing the requirement of dishonest intention from the beginning to constitute an offence under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Bhashkar Shankar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code’), for the following relief:

“That, this application is being filed for quashing of the order dated 03.10.13 passed by Smt. Rashmi Prasad Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case no. 3152(c)/11 u/s 420 IPC by which the prayer of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.”

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was the Cycling Coach of the complainant (opposite party no. 2) and had assured him to get a job in the Railways for which he had demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- to be paid to the authorities. It was alleged that out of the same, Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid but when the appointment was not made, on demand for return of money by the opposite party no. 2, the petitioner is said to have threatened him for neither providing him job nor returning the money and also of ruining his cycling career.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint case is totally false and frivolous as the very recital in the complaint case would reveal that the same is highly improbable and, thus, is clearly for oblique reasons. It was submitted that in the complaint it has been stated that the opposite party no. 2 became very close to the petitioner and upon being offered employment under the Railways had agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- had been paid. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has stated that he had filled up the form for being appointed as T.T.E. under the Railways. Learned counsel submitted that this clearly falsifies the claim of the opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner had promised him a job and had taken Rs. 1,50,000/- from him, for the reason, that the opposite party no. 2 was aged only 16 years at the relevant time and for the post of T.T.E. the minimum age is 18 years and, thus, it was absolutely not possible for the opposite party no. 2 to be appointed as T.T.E. as his age was clearly mentioned in the official certificates. Learned counsel submitted that while filling up the form the opposite party no. 2 cannot claim that he was unaware of the eligibility criteria and further, the plea that the petitioner would offer him a job under the Railways when the petitioner was nowhere connected with the Railways is a completely false statement. Learned counsel submitted that in the complaint case, the opposite party no. 2 has also not stated as to who was the person in the Railway Recruitment Board to whom the money would be given so as to satisfy the opposite party no. 2 that the offer was genuine. Learned counsel submitted that no prudent man is expected to part with a huge sum of money of Rs. 1,50,000/- on bald assurances without there being any authenticity of the person for whom the money is given, inasmuch as, in the present case neither the petitioner was a member of the Railway Recruitment Board nor he had mentioned to the opposite party no. 2 the name of any person whom the petitioner claimed to know and through whom a job would be procured and, most importantly, the age of the opposite party no. 2, which clearly made him aware that he was underage to qualify the basic eligibility criteria with regard to appointment on the post of T.T.E. under the Railways. Learned counsel submitted that under similar circumstances, as cognizance has been taken only under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, a Bench of this Court in Vijay Sharma vs. State of Bihar reported as 2011 (1) PLJR 780 has held that if the complainant voluntarily parted with money for an illegal purpose of securing appointment in Government service for a money consideration which itself was an offence, he could not urge that he had been cheated and that the concep