Patna High Court
Shovendra Kumar Chaudhary @ Shobhendra … vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22744 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-924 Year-2014 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
Bhagalpur
======================================================
Shovendra Kumar Chaudhary @ Shobhendra Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Sri
Shakti Dhar Choudhary, R/o Panchobh, P.S.- Bishanpur, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Pratima Kumar, Wife of Manoj Kumar, R/o Village-Kala Tola, P.S.-
Bariyarpur, District- Munger.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilanjan Chhaterjee, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
The present application has been preferred for
quashing of First Information Report (in short 'FIR') of
Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 dated
13.12.2014
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
(in short ‘IPC‘).
2. As per case of prosecution, a piece of land which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
2/19
was owned by the informant was leased to her uncle for
business purposes, which was further sub-let to co-accused,
namely, Abhay Kumar Singh as the business of her uncle did
not go well. The said co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh
established a rice mill on the land of the informant, who
approached in January, 2013 to uncle of the informant and
requested to provide the original land deed on the pretext of
getting correct information regarding boundaries and
specifications of the land. The original document of land,
which was obtained by co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh as
aforesaid, was not returned to the informant, and later on,
she came to know that co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh in
connivance with the petitioner mortgaged the land of the
informant and took a supply contract of paddy to the Bihar
State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (in short,
“Corporation”) worth Rs. 35 lakhs with an intention to siphon
off the money and get the land of the informant sold.
3. The petitioner said to be posted as District
Manager of Corporation, Dist.-Bhagalpur, at the relevant
point of time.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
3/19
4. In the background of the aforesaid written
information, Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014
was lodged against the petitioner on 03.12.2014.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that earlier a
quashing application was preferred by the petitioner to quash
the aforesaid FIR, which was numbered as Cr. Misc.
No.11396 of 2015 but, the same was dismissed by this Court
through its order dated 06.02.2018. It is pointed out that the
argument which was raised in the aforesaid quashing petition
was that for same cause of action another FIR was already
lodged by the uncle of the informant being Sultanganj P.S.
Case No.284 of 2014. It is submitted that the informant
herself has given no objection regarding the plot in issue,
where the rice mill of the co-accused is situated. It is
submitted that the present FIR was instituted only after
Certificate Case No.6 of 2014-15 was lodged against O.P.
No.2 by District Administration.
6. It is further submitted that the order as passed
in Cr. Misc. No.11396 of 2015 was challenged before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
4/19
Hon’ble Supreme Court, but, the same was also denied
through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.30123 of 2018
vide order dated 07.09.2018.
7. Taking account of the aforesaid dismissal of
prayer of quashing the petition of petitioner upto the Supreme
Court, it is pressed that the present quashing petition
preferred on the second occasion on the ground of changed
circumstance of inordinate delay in investigation that even
after the lapse of almost eleven years, the charge-sheet has
not been submitted.
8. Learned counsel, qua maintainability of the
present second quashing petition, submitted that there is no
bar regarding maintainability of the second quashing petition
and in this context, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Superintendent and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs.
Mohan Singh and Ors. reported in (1975)3 SCC 706,
which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Vinod Kumar, IAS vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in Live Law 2021 SC 281.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
5/19
9. Learned counsel also relied upon the legal report
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Pankaj
Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in
(2008) 16 SCC 117, where considering the inordinate
delay, in the investigation, the criminal proceeding was
quashed.
10. It is also submitted by learned counsel that he
came to know during the pendency of the present petition that
the investigation of this case now also stands completed, and
the petitioner was not sent up for facing trial.
11. Considering the aforesaid submission, the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur was directed to
file a counter affidavit in the present case vide order dated
09.04.2025 of this Court.
12. It is submitted that if it is so, then this changed
circumstance also appears to be the second ground for the
maintainability of the present quashing petition.
13. A notice was issued to the informant/O.P. No.2
but, despite of service of notice, which is apparent from Letter
No.354 dated 02.05.2025 as issued from the Senior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
6/19
Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, suggesting that notice
as issued by this Court duly received by informant/O.P. No.2,
she fails to join the present proceeding.
14. It would be apposite to reproduce the FIR of
Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 dated
13.12.2014 for better understanding of the case, which is as
under:-
“lsok esa]
Jheku~ Fkkuk/;{k
vkneiqj HkkxyiqjA
fo’k;%& izkFkfedh ntZ dj mfpr dk;Zokgh djus ds lEcU/k esAa
egk”k;]
lsok esa lfou; fuosnu gS fd eSa izfrek dqekjh ifr eukst
dqekj fuoklh dkyk Vksyk Fkkuk cfj;kjiqj ftyk eqx
a sj dh fuoklh gwWA esjh
tehu xzke “kkgckn pkSd ds ikl lqyrkuxat ftyk Hkkxyiqj esa dqy 10
dV~Vk 7 /kwj vofLFkr gS ftlesa esjs uke ls 8 dV~Bk 3 /kwj ,oa ckdh 2
dV~Bk 4 /kwj esjs ifr ds uke ls gS fnukad 02-04-2010 dks ;g tehu eSaus
yht ij vius pkpk Jh tokgj yky eaMy xzke “kkgkckn Fkkuk
lqYrkuxat ftyk Hkkxyiqj dks mudh O;kikj djus gsrq fn;k ftldk
lekfIr vof/k fnukad 31-10-2022 gSA tokgj yky eaMy us dkjksckj “kq:
fd;k ysfdu fdlh dkj.k o”k dke dkt vkxs ugha c<+ ik;kA blfy,
mUgksaus esjh lgefr ls ml tehu dks lc yht Jh vHk; dqekj flag firk
Jh jkekuan flag lkfdu Qqy fd;k czgeLFkku Fkkuk cfj;kjiqj ftyk eqaxsj
ds i{k esa fnukad 20-11-2011 dks dj fn;k ftldh lekfIr rkjh[k 31-10-
2022 gSA mDr vHk; flag cjkcj esjs ;gkW vk;k&tk;k djrs FksA blfy,
eSa mUgsa Hkh tkurh FkhA
mDr vHk; dqekj flag mDr tehu ij vtxSchukFk dk bUVj
izkbZtst ds uke ls jkbZl fey pykus yxkA tuojh 2013 ds vafre
lIrkg esa mDr Jh tokgj yky eaMy esjs ikl vk, vkSj eq>ls yht
okyh tehu dk ewy dsokyk dh ekWx ij dgrs gq, dgk fd mDr yht
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
7/19okyh tehu ds [kkrk] [kljk] jdok ,oa pkSgn~nh dh tkudkjh ds fy,
mDr dsokyk mDr vHk; dqekj falg ekWx jgk gSA eSus viuk ewy dsokyk
fnukad 13-11-2007 fo/kkuan eaMy cgd Jhefr izfrek dqekjh vius pkpk
Jh tokgj yky eaMy dks ns fn;kA tSlk fd mUgksausa mijksDr vHk; dqekj
flag dks ns fn;kA tokgj yky eaMy us eq>s crk;k fd vHk; dqekj falag
us mUgsa dgk fd dke gks tkus ds ckn ewy dsokyk mUgsa okil dj nsxkA
ijUrq mDr vHk; dqekj flag us mDr ewy dsokyk vkt rd u rks eq>s u
rks tokgj yky eaMy dks okil fd;k gSA dkQh le; chr x;k rks eq>s
dqN yksxksa }kjk ekywe gqvk fd vHk; dqekj flag us 31-01-2013 dks fcgkj
LVsV QwM ,.M flfoy lIykbZt dkWjiksjs’ku fyfeVsM Hkkxyiqj ds ftyk
izca/kd lksHksUnz pkS/;kjh ds lkFk pkoy rS;kjh gsrq ,xzhesaV fd;k gS ,oa mls
vtxSchukFk bUVj izkbZtst ds uke ls 0021 dksM fn;k x;k gSA eq>ls tks
ewy dsokyk /kks[kk nsdj vHk; dqekj flag us izkIr fd;k Fkk ml dsokyk
okyh tehu dks ftyk izca/kd lksHksUnz pkS/kjh ls feyh Hkxr dj ,d
‘kM;a= ds rgr tekur ds rkSj ij j[k fn;k x;k gS ,oa mDr ewy
dsokyk dks tekur ds :i esa fcgkj LVsV QwM ,.M flfoy lIykbZt
dkWjiksjs”ku fyfeVsM Hkkxyiqj ds dk;kZy; eas nkf[ky dj fn;k gSA tcfd
;g Li’V :i ls xSjdkuwuh gS ij vtxSchukFk bUVj izkbtst lqYrkuxat
vkM esa mDr vHk; dqekj flag flag rRdkyhu ftyk izca/kd ds lkFk
lkft”k ds rgr QthZ ,oa tkyh dkxtkr cuk fy;k gSA iqu% vHk; dqekj
flag dks esjs dsokyk ds tekur ,oa izfrHkwfr ds vk/kkj ij 3500000
¼iSfrl yk[k :i;s½ dk /kku ljdkj ds jksd Vksd ds }kjk ns fn;k x;k
rkfd tYn jde dj esjh tehu dks QthZ vk/kkj gsrq cspk lEcU/k es eq>s
fcgkj LVsV QwM lIykbZt dkWjiksjs”ku fyfeVsM Hkkxyiqj }kjk vHkh rd esjs
mDr dkxtkr ,oa rFkk dfFkr QthZ dkxtkr dh lEiqf’V ds fy, ugha
cqyk;k x;kA
;g lkjk ywV [klksV esjh lEifr dks fu”kku cukus ds ckn fd;k
x;k D;ksafd fnukad 31-01-2013 ds iwoZ Hkh vtxSchukFk bUVj izkbZtst
lqYrkuxat ds vHk; dqekj flag dk dkjksckj fcgkj LVsV QwM ,.M flfoy
lIykbZt dkSjiksjs”ku fyfeVsM Hkkxyiqj ls py jgk Fkk ij ml njE;ku
dksbZ ?kiyk ugha gqvkA tuojh 2013 esa eq>ls /kks[kk/kM+h dj dsokyk
gkfly djrs gh mUgsa 35 yk[k :i;s dk /kku fcgkj LVsV QwM ,.m fofoy
lIykbZt dkWjiksjs”ku fyfeVsM Hkkxyiqj }kjk lqiqnZ dj fn;k x;k vkSj og
Hkh fcuk fdlh pkoy olwyh ds tks ,d lan”s k Lin fo’k; gS ,oa rRdkfyu
ftlls izca/kd “kksHksUnz pkS/kjh ,oa vtxSchukFk bUVj izkbZtst ds ekfyd
vHkj dqekj flag ds vijkf/kd ‘kM;a= dks n”kkZrk gwWA nksuksa us fey dj
ljdkjh lEifr dk ?kksVkyk djrs gq, esjs lkFk Hkh /kks[kk /kM+h fd;k gSA
orZeku ftyk izca/kd misUnz izlkn Hkh muds }kjk fd;s x;s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
8/19mijkf/kd dk;Z dk cpko dj jgs gSa vkSj laHkor% ;g dke Jh vHk; dqekj
flag ls vuqfpr ykHk ds izHkko ls dj jgs gSa D;ksafd vc rd vtxSchukFk
bUVj izkbZtst lqYrkuxat ;k vHk; dqekj falg ds fo:) dksbZ dkjZokbZ
ugha dh tk jgh gS tcfd ;g ekeyk fnukad 04-09-2014 ds lekpkj i=
fgUnqLrku esa izdkf”kr ,oa izpkjh gks pqdh gSA m/kj dqN fnuksa ls eq>s
ijks{k :i ls pqi jgus ds fy, /kedk;k Hkh tk jgk gS A eSa mu O;fDr;ksa
dks ugha igpkurh ij fuf”pr gh os vHk; dqekj flag ds “kqHk fpUrd gS
D;ksafd pqi ugha jgus ij tku ls ekj nsus dh /kedh nh xbZ gSA bl laca/k
esa eq>s fofHkUu txgksa ls rF;ksa dh tkudkjh ysus eas dkQh le; yx x;k
blfy, eSa ;g vkosnu vkt Jheku~ dks ns jgk gWwA
bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd bu vfHk;qDrksa ij
,oa buesa “kkfey vU; O;fDr;ksa ij izkFkfedh ntZ dj ljhd ,oa “kh?kz
dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik dh tk; rkfd ,d vlgk; efgyk dh tkueky
dh j{kk lqfuf”pr gks ldsA
blds fy, eaS Jheku~ dk lnk vkHkkjh cuh jgwWxhA
ys[kd vkosfndk
jktho jatu izfrek dqekjh
vf/koDrk 13-12-2014
O;ogkj U;k;ky; ¼Jhefr izfrek dqekjh½
Hkkxyiqj ifr Jh eukst dqekj
fuoklh dkyk Vksyk Fkkuk
cfj;kjiqj] ftyk eqaxsjA
tokyj yky eaMy
firk& Lo- txnh”k eaMy
lkfdu “kkgkckn
Fkkuk lqYrkuxat
9973631343”
15. It would also be apposite to reproduce para-25-
28 of the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Pankaj Kumar Case (supra), which is as
under:-
“25. Though, it is true that the plea with regard
to inordinate delay in investigations and trial has been
raised before us for the first time but we feel that at this
distant point of time, it would be unfair to the appellant
to remit the matter back to the High Court for
examining the said plea of the appellant. Apart from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
9/19fact that it would further protract the already delayed
trial, no fruitful purpose would be served as learned
counsel for the State very fairly stated before us that he
had no explanation to offer for the delay in
investigations and the reason why the trial did not
commence for eight long years. Nothing, whatsoever,
could be pointed out, far from being established, to
show that the delay was in any way attributable to the
appellant.
26. Moreover, having regard to the nature of
the accusations against the appellant, briefly referred to
above, who was a young boy of about eighteen years of
age in the year 1981, when the acts of omission and
commission were allegedly committed by the concerns
managed by his parents, who have since died, we feel
that the extreme mental stress and strain of prolonged
investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the
sword of Damocles hanging perilously over his head for
over fifteen years must have wrecked his entire career.
27. Be that as it may, the prosecution has
failed to show any exceptional circumstance, which
could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning
the prolongation of investigation and the trial. The
lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a
period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate
delay of over eight years (excluding the period when the
record of the trial court was in the High Court), is
manifestly clear.
28. Thus, on facts in hand, we are convinced
that the appellant has been denied his valuable
constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial
and, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
10/19him in the year 1987 and pending in the Court of the
Special Judge, Latur, deserve to be quashed on this
short ground alone.”
16. In terms of the direction of this Court dated
09.04.2025, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur,
has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.04.2025 stating therein
about the status of investigation, which suggests that in the
present case a Final Form No.110 of 2020 dated 09.04.2020
was submitted as “mistake of law” against the petitioner.
17. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal
submissions, this Court is of the view that there is no doubt
regarding the maintainability of the present quashing petition
in view of changed circumstances.
18. It would be apposite to reproduce the judgment
dated 06.02.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11396 of 2015 for
sake of convenience, which is as under:-
“1. This application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing
of the First Information Report of Bhagalpur Kotwali
(Aadampur) P.S. Case No. 924 of 2014 instituted for
the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
11/19
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the second First Information Report has
been filed by Pratima Kumari for the same occurrence
for which earlier First Information Report has been filed
on 11.11.2014 by one Jawahar Lal Mandal, uncle of
the informant (Pratima Kumari) of this case. It has
further been submitted that for the same occurrence
two First Information Reports cannot be registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a decision reported in (2013) 6 SCC Page 348
(Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah Vrs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another.).
5. Learned A.P.P. has appeared and submitted
that in both the First Information Report the informant
is different. The facts of both First Information Reports
are also not the same. Both the FIRS have not been
lodged for the same set of transaction of the offence.
6. This Court after perusing the instant First
Information Report finds that it has been lodged by
Pratima Kumari, levelling allegation against accused
persons as named in the First Information Report. The
petitioner is also named in the instant First Information
Report. In the earlier First Information Report which
has been lodged by uncle of the informant Jawahar Lal
Mandal, only one Abhay Kumar Singh was named. He
has made request in the First Information Report for
making investigation in the case as he also suspects
hands of other accused persons in the occurrence.
7. Therefore, this Court after looking into both
the First Information Reports does not find that both
the First Information Reports have been lodged for the
same set of transactions of the offence. The police has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
12/19power to investigate the allegation made in separate
case on its own merit. The police cannot be restrained
from investigating the case merely because of filing of
earlier First Information Report by one Jawahar Lal
Mandal, in which the statement has been made that he
suspects the hands of other accused persons also in the
occurrence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that he has no grievance with the
investigation of the police in the First Information
Report. He is aggrieved by the second First Information
Report in which he has been named by the informant
Pratima Kumari.
9. This Court at this stage cannot give any
finding with regard to correctness of the allegation in
the instant First Information Report. This can only be
found out after proper investigation by the police.
10. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report.
11. This Criminal Miscellaneous application is
accordingly dismissed.”
19. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
order dated 07.09.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No(s).30123 of 2018,
which is as under:-
“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
13/19The special leave petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
20. It would also be relevant to re-produce the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Vinod
Kumar, IAS case (supra), which is as under:-
“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
ORDER
This petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution seeks quashing of Criminal
complaints/FIRs mentioned in Annexure P-3.
Annexure P-3 in turn refers to 28 cases filed or
initiated against the petitioner including cases listed at
Sl. Nos. 12 and 24 where conviction was recorded
against the petitioner on 24.09.2018 and 10.08.2018
respectively.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
see no reason to entertain this petition under Article
32. The petitioner, if so advised, can always file
appropriate applications under the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“The Code”, for short) seeking quashing of
the individual criminal cases or complaints.
At this stage, Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior
Advocate submits that the petitioner had approached
the High Court on earlier occasions filing applications
under Section 482 of the Code which were later
withdrawn.
The law on point as held by this Court in
“Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
14/19West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.” reported in SCC
(1975) 3 706 is clear that dismissal of an earlier 482
petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition
under Section 482, in case the facts so justify.
Needless to say that as and when any
appropriate application under the Code is preferred by
the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with purely on
its own merits without being influenced by the
dismissal of the instant writ petition.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
21. It would further be apposite to reproduce para-
5 of the counter affidavit dated 19.04.2025 as filed on behalf
of Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur regrading
status of case, which is as under:-
“5. That it is submitted that after receiving of
Letter No.10525 dated 11.04.2025 from one office of
Advocate General, Bihar Patna the answering opposite
party sought a report vide Memo No.290 dated
16.04.2025 from the Superintendent of Police, Nagar,
Bhagalpur and the Superintendent of Police, Nagar,
Bhagalpur after perusal of record of Jogasar P.S. Case
No.924 of 2024 (Earlier named as Bhagalpur Kotwali
(Adampur) P.S. Case No. 924 of 2014) submitted
report vide letter No.2207 dated 16.04.2025 stating
therein that for the same occurrence Sultanganj P.S.
Case No.284 of 2014 was registered for the offences
under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code in which Charge Sheet/Final
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
15/19Form No.34 of 2015 submitted before the court below
and as such in this present case Final Form No.110 of
2020 dated 09.04.2020 was submitted as mistake of
law (Vidhi Ki Bhul) before the court below and
investigation of this case had been closed.”
22. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no case is
made out against the petitioner in view of the golden
principles as available in para-102 of the State of Haryana
vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, which is as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
16/19(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
17/19
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
23. From perusal of FIR, it appears that the
petitioner was posted at the relevant point of time as District
Manager of the Corporation at Bhagalpur. The allegation
against the petitioner is founded upon suspicion, as he is the
Managing Director in connivance with the main co-accused
Abhay Kumar Singh, approved the mortgage of land of the
informant on behalf of the Department and proceeded
accordingly, benefiting the main co-accused. It also appears
that the informant herself filed an affidavit before the
Corporation regarding the mortgage of her land. It transpires
that for the same occurrence, two FIRs were lodged, which is
apparent from the counter affidavit filed by SSP, Bhagalpur
dated 19.04.2025, where the first case, which was lodged by
the uncle of the informant, the petitioner was not named but
in present case, which was lodged by the informant herself
after initiation of certificate proceedings, the police, after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
18/19
investigation, submitted a final form against this petitioner as
discussed above, mentioning a mistake of law. The aforesaid
charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2020 itself,
whereafter no progress was made before the court concerned
till date. The petitioner is facing the trauma of criminal
prosecution for the last 15 years. Taking note of the
allegation in its entirety against the petitioner as raised
through FIR and also in view of the supplementary affidavit
dated 19.04.2025, where the final form was submitted
against the petitioner as mistake of law, it can be safely said
that prima facie no cognizable offence was made out against
the petitioner.
24. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid factual
and legal discussions, the police case bearing Bhagalpur
(Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 dated 13.12.2014
arraying the petitioner as one of the co-accused and also
taking note of the charge-sheet, as discussed aforesaid, the
FIR of Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 with
all its consequential proceedings, if pending before the
learned trial court, is hereby quashed/set aside qua
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22744 of 2025 dt.17-06-2025
19/19
petitioner.
25. Hence, the present quashing petition stands
allowed.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned without any delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 06-05-2025 Uploading Date 17-06-2025 Transmission Date 17-06-2025