'Chilling Trend': Allahabad HC Slams Public Perception That Bribes Can Buy Anything, Denies Relief In Fake PhD Fraud FIR

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena thus refused to quash an FIR against a woman accused of defrauding an aspirant of over ₹22 lakh under the pretext of securing a PhD degree and an Assistant Professor job.

In a strongly worded order, the High Court noted that the allegations in the FIR 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.

The bench said that even an educated woman was taken in by the fraud because of her faith in the efficacy of corrupt practices. The Court stated this "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".

Briefly, an FIR was lodged by Tanya Dixit in Kanpur, alleging that the petitioner, Priyanka Singh Sengar, along with co-accused Vikram Singh Sengar, Tripti Singh Sengar and Sanya Singh Sengar, assured Dixit that she would be admitted to the PhD programme at an Aligarh-based University.

They also promised her that they would secure an Assistant Professor job for her at a University in Kanpur.

Relying on these assurances, Dixit and her mother transferred a total of ₹22,18,000 to the bank accounts of the accused. The informant, however, never applied for the job or the academic programme.

As per the allegations, in June 2024, the accused handed over a bundle of forged documents to the informant, including a PhD mark sheet, an admission letter, a topic approval letter and even an appointment letter from the Kanpur-based university asking her to join in July.

However, when she visited the University with her joining letter, the University Registrar informed her that all the documents were completely bogus and the signatures were forged.

When the informant threatened the accused of legal action, they held out death threats, as well as the threats of false implication in heinous offences.

During the hearing, the counsel for the accused-petitioner sought FIR quashing based on parity as two other accused had been granted interim relief by the High Court.

The Bench, however, rejected this argument, noting that the orders cited were merely interim and tentative.

The bench added that admission to a PhD course or appointment to a university teaching post cannot be done except through the procedure prescribed under the rules.

"The Ph.D. is earned from an University after following the Ph.D. Programme and successfully completing it, whereas appointment to a teaching post in a University is granted after undergoing the recruitment process, involving advertisement of posts and applying for them. Nevertheless, the faith of the common man in the efficacy of corrupt ways has led the first informant to be duped by the petitioner. It shows a very low state of moral fibre in society and crimes of this kind...”, the bench further remarked.

However, clarifying that it wasn't saying that the allegations in the FIR are true, but looking to the nature of the allegations, the bench opined that the FIR allegations required to be thoroughly and honestly investigated by the Police

Thus, finding it an unfit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the petition.