The court emphasized that ignorance of law is not an excuse, and a magistrate cannot modify charges during cognizance, affirming the need for proper authority in educational certification.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Gomia P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.39 of 2016 including the order dated 04.05.2017 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner submitted a forged certificate of having pursued the course from the Institute of Medical Technology and on the basis of that forged certificate created for the purpose of cheating and by using the said forged document to be a genuine one, committed cheating by obtaining employment as Laboratory Technician in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro and on the certificate produced by the petitioner being verified, it was found out that the petitioner has submitted a forged certificate of the Institute of Medical Technology which claims to have been registered with Registration No.132 of 2001, but the said registration number was found to belong to an organization in the name and style of Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti. On detection of forgery and cheating being committed by the petitioner, the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Gomia, Bermo where the petitioner was working, lodged the written report with Gomia Police Station. Basing upon the same, Gomia P.S. Case No. 04 of 2016 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner finding the allegations against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and basing upon the said charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 26.03.2026 for appearance of the petitioner and the petitioner has not appeared before the learned trial court as yet and charge has not yet been framed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofPriyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in2026 INSC 167 wherein in the facts of that case, the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India studied in a university set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature but the Act was declared ultra vires by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 11.02.2025 and till such time, the students had been studying and passing out from the said university and at the time of declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India protected the students who were still studying and they were directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognized by the State; and submits that considering the facts and factual situation in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the appellants before it cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in the University, which has been set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the State Legislature, hence, they should not be deprived of the benefits of the degree obtained b