Employment frauds pose grave public threat: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged cases where vulnerable individuals are lured with false promises of government jobs and exploited for financial gains as serious offences requiring strict judicial scrutiny. Referring to the broader societal stakes, Justice Sumeet Goel made it clear that pre-trial leniency could not embolden such criminal schemes.

“Cases where vulnerable young individuals are lured with false promises of providing government jobs and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of inducement and cheating and merit strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence,” Justice Goel observed.

The bench added that the courts must remain vigilant and ensure that such rackets were not emboldened by leniency at the pre-trial stage. “The court cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of securing employment and were induced to pay a substantial amount of money for the same. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence,” Justice Goel added.

Details of the alleged scam

It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner, along with others, induced the complainant to pay a substantial sum for securing employment for his son. Investigations showed that the petitioner arranged a medical examination, issued a uniform and an identity card — acts that “prima facie indicated a deliberate attempt to misrepresent facts and to cheat”.

The bench dismissed contentions that the matter was merely civil: “The material which has come on record discloses that the allegations against the petitioner are not vague or general but are specific, supported by details of payments. The contention that the dispute is merely civil in nature does not hold merit.”

Section 420 IPC squarely applies

The bench clarified that the offence of cheating fell squarely under Section 420 of the IPC when deception and dishonest inducement form the foundation of a transaction. Pointing at the limited scope of anticipatory bail hearings, Justice Goel asserted: “At the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence but only to assess whether a prima facie case is made out or not.”

The court also made it clear that disputing specific details of the transaction, such as dates of payment, could not dilute the severity of allegations at the anticipatory bail stage: “The defence projected by the petitioner that there is no mention of the specific dates of payment, is a matter of evidence, which can be examined during the course of trial and the same does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations at this stage.”

Financial deceit with far-reaching consequences

The court asserted that such offences extended beyond individual financial loss to broader societal harm:

“The offence alleged is of a serious nature, involving substantial financial loss to the complainant as well as inducement and cheating. The offence in question does not merely involve financial deceit but the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed is not only grave in nature but also have far-reaching consequences for the general public,” the court observed.

Justice Goel also stressed the delicate balance between individual rights and societal interest when considering anticipatory bail by observing that the court was required to equilibrate between safeguarding the two. “The court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society.”

Bail plea rejected

Turning down the anticipatory bail plea, the court ruled there was no material on record to hold that prima facie case was not made out against the petitioner. The material on record and preliminary investigation, appeared to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. “Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.”