Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance … on 28 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74584 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2006 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Gupta Son of Late Kishori Lal Ram R/O Mohalla- Navratan
Hata, P.S.- Khazanchi Hat, District- Purnea, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Muzaffarpur
Bihar
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-Station House Officer, Vigilance,
Bihar,6, Circular Road Patna- 800001
3. The Special Judge, Special Court, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur (West),
Muzaffarpur Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Shankar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Gopal Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Law Officer Vigilance
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-07-2025
Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayan Sahi, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Siddharth Shankar
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar,
learned counsel for the Department of Vigilance.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing of the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, whereby the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
2/17
application dated 18.10.2023 filed by the petitioner for discharge
was dismissed.
And further for quashing of the order dated 13.02.2017 by which
the learned Special Judge Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur,
was pleased to take congnizance against the petitioner in Special
Case No. 28 of 2006 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of
2006 dated 05.05.2006 for the offences under Section 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) of the I.P.C. and under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act and also the consequential order of issuance of process against
the petitioner.
And further prayer to direct the learned Court below to provide the
petitioner entire police paper and other relevant document on
which prosecution is going to rely and propose to use against the
petitioner which has not been done despite filing of application
under Section 207 dated 18.10.2023.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the fact giving rise to the present application is that one
Kamleshwar Pawan, Mansu Paswan and Lalan Paswan submitted
and undated application in the office of the Block Development
Officer, Saraiya on 26.0.2003 stating therein that eight bags of
Rice laden on the hand-cart (Thela) was apprehended and was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
3/17
subsequently taken into the possession by the villagers. It is further
alleged that upon inquiry Ramesh Singh and Bindeshwar Paswan
were taking the rice stated that the said rice was of the
Government and was being move for the payment of wages to the
laborers and the B.D.O. was requested to initiate an appropriate
inquiry in the matter.
4. It is further stated that the B.D.O., Saraiya,
Muzaffarpur, on the same day, endorsed the said complaint to the
then Block Animal Husbandry, Officer and directed to submitted a
report and, therefore, the B.D.O., Saraiya, Muzaffarpur, was
transferred on 21.07.2003. Thereafter, a new incumbent joined
after the transfer of the B.D.O., Saraiya, Muzaffarpur, who
entrusted the inquiry concerning the issue of the Block Co-
operative Extension Officer, Saraiya. Upon the inquiry a report
was submitted by the Block Co-operative Extension Officer,
Saraiya, wherein categorical findings were recorded that mukhiya
and executive agent, in conspiracy with each other, were taking the
rice out for the black marketing. Despite the aforesaid inquiry
report no action was taken against anybody and the seized rice was
also kept at the door of Vishwanath Shah and was deteriorating day
by day and a report was also sent to the S.H.O., Saraiya for taking
necessary action, however, even the S.H.O., Officer, Saraiya,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
4/17
preferred to sit over the issue and did not lodge any FIR against
the persons named in the report. It is further stated that the
petitioner is said to have submitted a report in pursuance of oral
instructions and after due inquiry in accordance with law a report
was submitted stating therein that the Mukhiya and his associates
were involved in committing illegalities and had also adopted
corrupt practices. The findings of the inquiry report submitted by
the petitioner was considered by the then District Magistrate
Muzaffarpur, and on his instructions the then B.D.O., Saraiya was
directed to lodge an FIR against the accused i.e., the then Mukhiya
and other persons who were found involved in the misdeed. In
pursuance to the above directions an F.I.R., bearing Saraiya P.S.
Case No. 324 of 2004 dated 18.10.2004 got registered under
Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. against the then
Mukhiya and Contractor.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
after lapse of a period of one year and seven months the
complainant Anil Sharma filed the Complaint Case No. 16 of 2005
dated 24.03.2005 against nine accused persons including the
petitioner, however, from perusal of the complaint, it would be
clear that there was nothing specific alleged against the petitioner.
In pursuance to the complaint, an investigation was directed to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
5/17
conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar, and the police inspector conducted a preliminary inquiry
and submitted a report and from perusal of the said report it would
be evident that there is no specific findings against the petitioner
which is supported by any material and lawful evidence showing
his involvement into alleged offences made against the petitioner.
However, a direction was issued to register a case under Section
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and permission for the
initiation of the investigation of the offences was also granted.
Pursuant to the said direction the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of
2006 was lodged and the same was entrusted upon a Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bihar, to conduct
investigation after a lapse of more than three years from the date of
occurrence. On such instruction, the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of
2006 was registered on 05.08.2006 against all the named accused
persons including the petitioner which is sub-judice before the
Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that from mere perusal of the written report it
would be evident that that there is no specific allegation alleged
against the petitioner and whatever allegations are there the same
is not supported and not based on substantial and cogent materials.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
6/17
It has further been submitted that allegation of black marketing of
the government rice related back to the period March, 2003, when
the petitioner was posted as the Executive Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur, (West). From perusal of the report, it would be
evident that involvement of the petitioner or his connivance in the
alleged malpractices/ corruption was never found during the
course of investigation and unintentional lapse in inquiry of black
marketing of rice would not constitute any criminal offences
against the petitioner, that too when the rice is in the possession of
the complainant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also pointed
out that the complainant who has filed the complaint on account of
on going political rivalry between him and the then Mukhiya had
not stated anything against the petitioner in his complaint and,
infact, he had acknowledged the fact that on the basis of report
submitted by the petitioner, the FIR bearing Saraiya P.S. Case No.
324 of 2004 was lodged. It has also been stated that the
complainant did not take any legal steps against the erring police
officials of Saraiya Police Station who did not investigate into the
allegations contained therein in the FIR and instead, filed the
private vexatious and unplaced complaint.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
7/17
8. Learned Senior counsel submits that even if the entire
allegations levelled in the FIR are taken in their entirety, no
offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner and none of
the ingredients of offences has described under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) are being made out.
9. Learned Senior Counsel then raises a very pertinent
question of law wherein he submits that the investigating agency
submitted Charge Sheet No. 47 of 2016 on 16.12.2016 i.e., after
lapse of eleven years of undue, unlawful and unexplained delay. It
has further been submitted that the charge sheet has been
submitted in utmost routine and mechanical manner which talks
about callous and insensitive attitude of the investigating agency
towards the accused persons. Learned Senior Counsel has stated
that even on perusal of the charge sheet, it would be evident that
even after investigation of more than 10-12 years, no material has
come out against the petitioner and the same is reiteration of the
preliminary inquiry report contained in Memo No. 156 of 2005
dated 08.12.2005 meaning thereby that there was no further
investigation practically made by the investigating officer.
10. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of
this Court towards the judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 31307 of 2016 whereby one of the co-accused, namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
8/17
Ahmad Mohammad, who had preferred an application under
Section 482 for quashing the entire proceedings approached this
Hon'ble Court and after hearing the parties concerned this Court
was pleased to quash the entire proceeding and also the order
taking cognizance dated 13.02.2017 against him. Likewise another
accused, namely, Sudhir Kumar Sahu who had approached this
Court for quashing of the entire proceedings vide Cr. Misc. No.
60398 of 2017 was also heard by this Court and vide order dated
19.09.2023
this Court was pleased to quash the entire criminal
proceeding and also the order taking cognizance against the said
accused.
11. Learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the entire
prosecution is misconceived, malicious and frivolous and even if
the allegations levelled against the petitioner are taken into
account, it could at best be levelled as dereliction in duty or lack of
action or inaction on the part of the petitioner and no criminal
intent could be drawn for the inaction committed by the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that if such delay or
inaction is taken into account then many officers including Senior
officer would also be equally responsible for the same and singling
out the petitioner and few others would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
9/17
12. Learned counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that
once the Court has taken cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr.
P.C. this Court would normally not interfere as the learned Court
below was justified in holding that a prima facie case is being
made out as he had found offences having been committed at that
relevant time and as such meticulous weighing of the evidence and
consideration of the defense of the accused cannot be permitted at
this stage. It is further submitted that in view of such legal
proposition even this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
would not interfere as the petitioner would have ample opportunity
to present his defense during the trial. It is further submitted that
the case of the petitioner is not covered under the parameters as
stated in paragraph 102 of the judgment of Hon’ble Superme Court
in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335.
13. Learned counsel for the Vigilance further submitted
that if a prima facie offence is being made against the accused this
Court should not interfere under the present jurisdiction, however,
Learned counsel for the Vigilance could not deny the fact that the
allegations upon the petitioner was only of being not active enough
to take appropriate action within time and beyond that there is
nothing in the charge sheet against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
10/17
14. Having considered the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also the submissions forwarded by the learned
counsel for the parties and upon going through the materials on
record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has carved out a
case for himself. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the complaint, the allegation and also the
investigation is taken into account, the allegation upon the
petitioner is of not performing his duty and causing delay and
apart from that there is nothing against the petitioner to show his
complicity in the present case. This Court has observed that the
petitioner inquired into the matter and submitted a report, however,
no action was taken thereafter and for which he cannot be held
liable. In fact, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the
report of the petitioner was the basis of lodging of the FIR and
therefore he cannot be saddled with the liability of inaction also.
15. This Court also finds the objection of learned
counsel for the Vigilance with regard to the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to none
interference in the order taking cognizance to be erroneous. It is a
settled law that the primary duty of the Court under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. is to ensure that the same should be exercised to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
11/17
secure the ends of justice as has been observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Aanand Kumar Mohatta and Anr.
Vs. State (Gov. of NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and
Anr. passed in Cr. Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 3730 of 2016) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
stated that there is nothing in the words of Section 482 of Cr. P.C.
which restricts to exercise the power of the Court to prevent the
abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to the
stage of the FIR. It is a settled principle of law that the High
Courts can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. even
when the discharge application is pending with the trial Court.
16. The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner on the Case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of
Maharstara and Ors. Passed in Cr. Appeal No. 1067 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2843 of 2006) wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was delivering a judgment on the rights of
the accused of speedy trial which flows from the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph
No. 15 has observed thus:-
15. The exposition of Article 21 in
Hussainara Khatoon’s case (supra) was
exhaustively considered afresh by the
Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
12/17& Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. Referring to a
number of decisions of this Court and the
American precedents on the Sixth Amendment
of their Constitution, making the right to a
speedy and public trial a constitutional
guarantee, the Court formulated as many as
eleven propositions with a note of caution that
these were not exhaustive and were meant only
to serve as guidelines. For the sake of brevity,
we do not propose to reproduce all the said
propositions and it would suffice to note the
gist thereof. These are: (I) fair, just and
reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of
the Constitution creates a right in the accused
to be tried speedily; (ii) right to speedy trial
flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the
stages, namely the stage of investigation,
inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial; (iii)
in every case where the speedy trial is alleged
to have been infringed, the first question to be
put and answered is who is responsible for the
delay?; (iv) while determining whether undue
delay has occurred (resulting in violation of
right to speedy trial) one must have regard to
all the attendant circumstances, including
nature of offence, number of accused and
witnesses, the work-load of the court
concerned, prevailing local conditions and so
on-what is called, the systemic delays; (v) each
and every delay does not necessarily prejudice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
13/17the accused. Some delays may indeed work to
his advantage. However, inordinately long
delay may be taken as presumptive proof of
prejudice. In this context, the fact of
incarceration of accused will also be a
relevant fact. The prosecution should not be
allowed to become a persecution. But when
does the prosecution become persecution,
again depends upon the facts of a given case;
(vi) ultimately, the court has to balance and
weigh several relevant factors-‘balancing test’
or ‘balancing process’ and determine in each
case whether the right to speedy trial has been
denied; (vii) Ordinarily speaking, where the
court comes to the conclusion that right to
speedy trial of an accused has been infringed
the charges or the conviction, as the case may
be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only
course open and having regard to the nature of
offence and other circumstances when the
court feels that quashing of proceedings
cannot be in the interest of justice, it is open to
the court to make appropriate orders,
including fixing the period for completion of
trial; (viii) it is neither advisable nor feasible
to prescribe any outer time-limit for
conclusion of all criminal proceedings. In
every case of complaint of denial of right to
speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution
to justify and explain the delay. At the same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
14/17
time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the
circumstances of a given case before
pronouncing upon the complaint; (ix) an
objection based on denial of right to speedy
trial and for relief on that account, should first
be addressed to the High Court. Even if the
High Court entertains such a plea, ordinarily
it should not stay the proceedings, except in a
case of grave and exceptional nature. Such
proceedings in High Court must, however, be
disposed of on a priority basis.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the
various case laws and the judicial pronouncement ultimately held
in paragraph 17 as under:-
17. It is, therefore, well settled that
the right to speedy trial in all criminal
persecutions is an inalienable right under
Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is
applicable not only to the actual proceedings
in court but also includes within its sweep the
preceding police investigations as well. The
right to speedy trial extends equally to all
criminal persecutions and is not confined to
any particular category of cases. In every
case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged
to have been infringed, the court has to
perform the balancing act upon taking into
consideration all the attendant circumstances,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
15/17enumerated above, and determine in each case
whether the right to speedy trial has been
denied in a given case. Where the court comes
to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial
of an accused has been infringed, the charges
or the conviction, as the case may be, may be
quashed unless the court feels that having
regard to the nature of offence and other
relevant circumstances, quashing of
proceedings may not be in the interest of
justice. In such a situation, it is open to the
court to make an appropriate order as it may
deem just and equitable including fixation of
time for conclusion of trial.
18. Considering the aforesaid principle enumerated
above, this Court finds that in the present case the initial FIR was
lodged in the year 2004 while the Vigilance P.S. Case was
registered in the year 2006 and the charge sheet was submitted in
the year 2016 on 16.12.2016. From the aforesaid facts, it is also
evident that the investigating agency took more than 10 years to
submit the charge sheet and even today the case is pending for
framing of the charges.
19. Learned counsel for the Vigilance has not been able
to give any explanation for the delay in the investigation and the
reasons for the submission of charge sheet after more than ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
16/17years. Moreover, having regard to the nature of the accusations
against the petitioner which this Court has discussed elaborately
above, from the plain reading of the FIR, no offence is being made
out against the petitioner and there is no material which could later
be translated into evidence at the stage of trial.
20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is constrained to
observe that the petitioner has suffered for almost twenty years
now with the sword in the form of criminal prosecution hanging
over his head and his career has also taken a back seat as he lost on
account of promotion along with his other colleagues on account
of delayed investigation. The lackadaisical manner in which the
investigation had progressed and it took the investigating agency
more than ten years to submit the charge sheet is enough to
convince this Court that the right which the petitioner is
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy
investigation and trial must be invoked in the present case and
therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner
in the year 2006 pending before the learned Special Judge
Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, deserves to be quashed.
21. For the aforesaid view, the order dated 15.06.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74584 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
17/17connection with Special Case No. 28 of 2006 arising out of
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of 2006, is hereby quashed.
22. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Jyoti/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12.08.2025 Transmission Date 12.08.2025