Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 25 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10632 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2017 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar S/O Late Raghunanadan Prasad R/O Village- Sakatpur, P.O-
Barhog, P.S- Bind, Distt.- Nalanda, PIN Code- 803107 (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rambabu S/O Late Ram Naumi Ram R/O Village and P.O- Dighwaliya, P.S-
Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan (Bihar), Presently posted as Distt.- Manager,
State Food corporation, Distt.- Nalanda (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshul, Sr. Adv
: Mr. Uday Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-06-2025
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present quashing petition has been
preferred to quash the FIR along with entire proceeding with
regard to the petitioner in Laheri P.S. Case No. 279 of 2017
registered on 05.07.2017 for the offence punishable under
Sections 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that one
Rambabu who is presently posted as District Manager, State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
2/16
Food Corporation, District-Nalanda gave his written
application vide Letter No. 958 dated 05.07.2017 to the
Station House Officer, Laheri Police Station to the effect that
in the light of Letter No. 4076 dated 28.06.2017 of the
District Magistrate, Nalanda one enquiry was conducted by
the State Food Corporation in the CMR Godown, Biharsharif
and found that 59279.50 quintals of CMR instead of
76203.71 quintals was found and in this way 16768.50
quintals of Government rice appears short and also the quality
of rice found sub-standard for which Ranjeet Kumar,
Superintendent, State Food Corporation, Biharsharif and
Abhay Kumar, Executive Assistant were prima-facie found
and therefore, guilty in the light of Letter No. 957 dated
05.07.2017
present FIR was instituted.
4. Mr. Anshul learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that present FIR was lodged only
against two persons namely Ranjeet Kumar and Abhay
Kumar, where the name of petitioner transpired on the basis
of disclosure statement as made by co-accused Ranjeet
Kumar who said that petitioner has wholesale shop of food
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
3/16
grain in Bazar Samiti, Biharsharif and is also owner of two
Rice Mills who promised to supply the rice. It is submitted that
with aforesaid allegations investigation of this case is pending
since 2017 against petitioner. It is pointed out that name of
petitioner transpired in the year 2018 and in last seven years
the investigation for such allegation not concluded against
petitioner. It is submitted that in view of same FIR lodged
against petitioner is fit to be set aside and quashed.
5. In support of the submissions learned senior
counsel relied upon the reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and Hon’ble Patna High Court which are as follows:-
(i) Biswanath Prasad Singh Vs. State
of Bihar, [1994 Supp (3) SCC 97].
(ii) Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha &
Others, [1994 Supp (3) SCC 735].
(iii) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., [(2008) 16 SCC
117].
(iv) R.K. Mandal & Others Vs. The
State of Bihar, [1996 SCC OnLine Pat
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
4/16546].
(v) Baidnath Prasad @ Baidyanath
Sah & Other Vs. The State of Bihar, [
1998 SCC OnLine Pat 445].
6. Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of
quashing petition submitted that matter is under
investigation, but he fairly conceded that investigation is still
pending even after eight years against petitioner. It transpires
from the counter affidavit as filed by SP, Newada also that
investigation of this case is still pending against petitioner.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce the para no.
5 of the Biswanath Prasad Case (supra), which reads as
under:-
5. It is true that the charges against the
appellant relate to misappropriation of public
funds. In such a case, we should take a more
stricter view as indicated in the Constitution
Bench decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
93 : AIR 1992 SC 1701] . But there are certain
circumstances in this case which induce us to
interfere in the matter. The most glaring one is
that even though the FIR was issued on 10-12-
1977, the charge-sheet was filed only on 5-2-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
5/16
1983, i.e., after a lapse of 5 years. No
explanation is forthcoming for this extraordinary
delay. Maybe, this being a case of
misappropriation of public funds, the
investigation may have taken a longer time but
it cannot certainly take more than five years,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case. Added to the said circumstance is the
fact that even though there was no stay in this
special leave petition/criminal appeal, the case
has not progressed much as stated above.
Moreover, the appellant has been dismissed
from service on these very allegations. His
provident fund and gratuity amounts have been
forfeited and he has crossed the age of
superannuation. Calling upon him now to enter
upon defence, after 16 years, in all the facts and
circumstances of the case, is bound to cause
prejudice to him.
8. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
para nos. 4, 6 and 18 of the Santosh De Case (supra),
which reads as under:-
4. A few relevant facts may be stated. The
respondent was the Director of Mines,
Government of Bihar. A raid was conducted on
his premises and certain amount of cash and
jewellery recovered. On 27-3-1978, a
preliminary charge-sheet was filed under Section
5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
6/16substance of the charge was that the respondent
was in possession of assets beyond the known
sources of his income. On 15-12-1982, the
Government of Bihar refused to grant sanction
for prosecuting the respondent, which was
required under the provisions of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. For that reason — or any
other, as the case may be — no final charge-
sheet was filed. Yet the proceedings were kept
pending. It is in these circumstances that the
respondent approached the High Court by way of
a writ petition which was allowed. We are also
told that in the criminal appeal filed against the
judgment of the High Court, this Court made an
order on 23-11-1987 permitting the parties to
lead evidence with the restriction that no further
proceedings shall be taken in the matter. Taking
advantage of the said interim order, it appears,
sanction for prosecution was accorded by the
State Government on 29-3-1990 but it is stated
by the learned counsel for the respondent, no
statements of witnesses were recorded in the
case. Meanwhile, the respondent retired from
service on 30-11-1991.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it
cannot be said that the delay in conduct of the
case has been caused by the accused-
respondent. From 1978 to 1986 and again from
November 1987 till this day, there has been no
progress in the case. Not a single witness has
been examined so far. In these circumstances,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
7/16
following the principles enunciated in Abdul
Rehman Antulay v.R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC
225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] , the judgment of the
High Court is affirmed and the criminal appeal is
dismissed.
18. While we appreciate that a serious criminal
offence might have taken place at the hands of
Respondents 1 to 9, we cannot be oblivious to
the fact that almost 17 years have elapsed since
the date of that occurrence and there are these
several delays pointed out earlier which remain
unexplained. We think that in the circumstances
the rights of Respondents 1 to 9 to a speedy trial
have been breached and no interference with the
judgment under appeal is called for. The appeal
is dismissed.
9. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
para nos. 25 to 28 of the Pankaj Kumar Case (supra),
which reads 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 fact 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
8/16that 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
9/16the appellant has been denied his valuable
constitutional right to a speedy investigation and
trial and, therefore, criminal proceedings
initiated against him in the year 1987 and
pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Latur,
deserve to be quashed on this short ground
alone.
10. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
para nos. 15, 17, 19 and 20 of the R.K. Mandal Case
(supra), which reads as under:-
15. Undisputed facts are that on 6.6.1976 the
Executive Engineer sent proposal for auction of
iron scraps to the Superintending Engineer. On
19.11.1976, Shri Zoha, Superintending Engineer
accepted the proposal and accorded approval for
holding of auction. On 22.9.1978 the auction
was held at Patna and Rs. 321/- per metric tonne
was decided to be the rate for auction in favour
of Ram Milan Singh. Petitioner no. 1 was the
Executive Engineer. No specific role has been
alleged as against petitioners no. 2 and 3.
Petitioners no. 4 and 5 had merely submitted
survey report on 14.10.1974 with respect to the
auction. On 17.10.1978, the Executive Engineer
constituted weighment Committee which
included petitioners no. 2 to 5. The contractor
was allowed to take the material by truck
between 30.1.1978 to 20.12.1978. However, in
13th trip being taken on 22nd December, 1978,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
10/16
it is alleged that the employee seized the truck
and got the materials unloaded in a room. In
March, 1979 materials were weighed and 42
Kgs. were found to be in excess out of 10 M.T.
Thus, the difference was hardly 4%. The
weighment was done by one tonne machine.
Without rebuttal 14.136 M.T. was allegedly
recovered in excess of seizure, the value of
which is about Rs. 4,200/-. Thereafter, as
already mentioned above, the F.I.R. was lodged
on 19.9.79, charge sheet was submitted on
5.9.1986 and the cognizance was taken on
20.9.1986.
17. None of the aforementioned circumstances
has been considered by the apex Court to be not
to invoke the right to speedy trial flowing from
Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court held that the proceeding taken by either
party in good faith to vindicate their rights and
interest, as perceived by them, is not to be
treated as delaying tactics nor the time taken in
pursuing such proceeding is to be counted
towards delay. In the instant case, I find that the
petitioners had approached this Court in the
present writ petition on account of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court with respect
to according sanction of such prosecution after
lapse of seven years. Thereafter the matter went
to the Supreme Court and the same was finally
disposed of and decided by the apex Court on
10.12.1991 in the case of A.R. Antuley (supra)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
11/16
which decision is reported in AIR 1992 S.C.
1701 : 1992 (1) PLJR (SC) 41.
19. In the case of Santosh De v. Archna Guha
(AIR 1994 S.C. 1229) the Supreme Court
following the principles laid down in Antuley case
held that unexplained delay of eight years in
commencement of the trial by itself infringes the
right of the accused to speedy trial. The accused
in the said case was a public servant alleged to
have possessed disproportionate assets to the
tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Delay was not attributed
to the accused. As such, the proceeding quashed
against the accused was upheld. In the case of
Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1994
Suppl. (3) SCC 97), the apex Court was dealing
with a case relating to misappropriation of public
fund for which F.I.R. was filed on 10.12.1977
and charge sheet was filed on 5.2.1983. The
court framed the charges on 25.4.1989 but
thereafter not much progress was made in the
case. Appellant had already been dismissed from
service. The Supreme Court, noticing that in
such a case stricter view should be taken as
indicated in the Constitution Bench decision in
Antuley’s case (supra), interfered in the matter
mainly on the ground that even though F.I.R.
was issued on 10.12.1977, the charge sheet was
filed on 5.2.1983 i.e., after lapse of five years,
no explanation was forthcoming for the
extraordinary delay. The apex Court held that
may be, this being a case of misappropriation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
12/16
public fund, the investigation may have taken a
longer time but cannot certainly take five years,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case. Accordingly, it was held that calling
upon the accused to enter upon defence after 16
years, in all the facts and circumstances of the
case, is bound to cause prejudice to him. In the
present case, nothing has been pointed out by
the learned State Counsel to justify the delay of
seven years in completing the investigation,
except the aforementioned plea taken in the
counter affidavit.
20. In the present case which is also relating to
alleged misappropriation of public funds, the
investigation took seven years to be completed.
The explanation aforementioned for the delay is
virtually no explanation in the eye of law. In any
view of the matter, it is now difficult to get over
the facts that the prosecution against the
petitioners has been pending for more than 17
years and petitioner no. 1 died during the
pendency of the writ application in the year 1988
and the Superintending Engineer, who accorded
the approval for the auction purchase, has not
been sent up. Further, the petitioners have been
exonerated of the charge in the departmental
enquiry. It is, thus, impossible to arrange a fair
trial after lapse of long time and, in my opinion,
it would be sheer waste of public time and
money, apart from causing harassment to the
petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
13/16
11. It would further be apposite to reproduce the
para nos. 6 to 8 of the Baidnath Prasad Case (supra),
which reads as under:-
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners assailed the impugned order as being
illegal and contrary to the evidence on record.
Learned counsel firstly submitted that for the
offence under section 3 of the R.P.U.P. Act, the
conviction is upto five years and this case is
pending for more than 6-7 years and hence no
charge can be framed on this ground alone.
Learned counsel in support of his contention,
relied upon the order passed by this Court in
similar cases. The learned Magistrate in his order
has taken notice of the receipts filed by the
petitioners in support of the fact that he is
bonafide auction purchasers from railway
administration, but it held that the receipts
cannot be considered at the time of framing of
charge.
7. Admittedly, the criminal case was registered
against the petitioners on the basis of report on
22.2.1991 and cognizance was taken on
31.1.1992 on the basis of the chargesheet
submitted by the railway police force personal. It
is also admitted fact that till date charge has not
been framed although about 7 years have passed
and the case is pending for the last seven years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
14/16
There is nothing on the record to show that the
delay in proceeding with the case has been
caused due to laches on the part of the
petitioners. In such circumstance, in my opinion,
for the ends of justice, the instant proceeding
against the petitioners should not continue any
further. In this connection reference may be
made to a decision of the Supreme Court in A.R.
Antulay’s case ((1992) 1 SCC 225 : A.I.R. 1992
SC 1701 : 1992 (1) PLJR (SC) 41). Relevant
portion of the observation of the Apex Court
reads as under:
“(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit
in Art. 21 of the Constitution creates a right in
the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy
trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a
speedy, trial is also in public interest or that it
serves the societal interest also, does not make it
any the less the right of the accused. It is in the
interest of all concerned that the guilt or
innocence of the accused is determined as
quickly as possible in the circumstances.
(2) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Art. 21
encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revisions and
retrial. That is how this Court has understood this
right and there is no reason to take a restricted
view.”
8. In another case of Santosh De v. Archna
Guha1994 Supp (3) SCC 735 : AIR 1994 SC
1229) the Supreme Court following the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
15/16
principles laid down in A.R. Antulay’s case
(supra) held that this unexplained delay of 8
years in commencing the trial by itself infringes
the right of the accused to speedy trial. The
proceeding in that case against an accused, who
was a public servant allegedly possessing
disproportionate assets, was quashed. Similarly
in another case of misappropriation of public
fund, the Apex Court quashed the proceeding for
the reason that there was inordinate delay in the
trial of the case. Reference may be made to the
case of Bishwanath Prasad v. State of Bihar
(1994 Supp (3) SCC 97). A division Bench of
this Court in the case of R.K. Mandal v. State of
Bihar (1997 (1) BLJ 283 : 1997 (1) PLJR 354)
has followed the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court and quashed the criminal
proceeding registered under the Prevention of
Corruption Act on the ground of its pendency for
more than seven years.
12. Considering the admitted position as
investigation of this case not concluded even after seven
years against petitioner, which appears contrary to the
proposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed
above, therefore, for such inordinate delay in investigation,
which prima-facie appears in violation of constitutional right
of speedy trial of the accused/petitioner, this Court is of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10632 of 2025 dt.25-06-2025
16/16
view that the prosecution against petitioner is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, pending proceeding, qua,
petitioner arising thereof as passed in Laheri P.S. Case No.
279 of 2017, pending before learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nalanda is hereby quashed and set aside with all
consequential proceedings, if any.
14. Hence, this application stands allowed.
15. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned
to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this
judgment.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 01.07.2025 Transmission Date 01.07.2025