Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84269 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4567 of 2024 Revisionist :- Girja Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandip Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar,Raj Bahadur Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 17.08.2024, whereby the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur has rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that rejection of application was not justified as cognizable offense stood made out. Further submissions have been made that the opposite parties had taken sum of Rs. 15 lacs from the applicant in order to facilitate job of the applicant’s son in Air Force but they returned only part of the money and have not returned the entire amount and when the applicant demanded the same, threats to face dire consequences were advanced and, therefore, cognizable offense stands made out against the accused. 4. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the entire transaction alleged by the applicant is unlawful, relates to the allegation of bribery, the court has not committed any error in rejecting the application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted case of the applicant that he had paid certain money to the accused persons for an unlawful purpose, i.e. facilitating job in lieu of money, which comes under the definition of illegal gratification or bribe. Admittedly, certain cheques issued by the accused persons were also dishonored for various reasons. Even in the Explanation attached to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, action can be taken only when the cheques are issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or any other liability, otherwise no case can proceed even under that provision. 6. Even if the court accepts that only part of the money has been, later on, returned by the accused persons and remaining has not been paid back to the applicant, the same, in itself, does not constitute an offense so as to give rise to a criminal case inasmuch as the very basis of the proceedings is the allegation of bribe given by the applicant, who himself would become an accomplice in the commission of an offense. 7. Even otherwise, as per Section 23 of the Contract Act, any contract between the parties, which is against public policy or is forbidden by law, is not enforceable under the law. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any error in rejection of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 9. The revision has no merit. It is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad