Patna High Court – Orders
Bijay Kumar Raut vs The State Of Bihar Through The Senior … on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1481 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-876 Year-2023 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Bijay Kumar Raut, Son of Late Jaimal Raut, Resident Of Mohalla -GAYATRI
Indane Gas Godown, Ps- Jamalpur, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna
Bihar
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Patna Bihar
3. The Officer-In- Charge, Ram Krishna Nagar Police Station, Patna Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Shantanu Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.P.26
Mr. Naval Kishore Singh, JC to GP 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 26-03-2025
1. This is an application under Article 226 read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for
the following reliefs:-
“(i) For quashing the order dated
13.05.2024 passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Patna in Criminal Misc. Case No. 75 of
2024 (arising out of Ram Krishna Nagar Case
No. 876 of 2023) whereby and whereunder the
prayer of the petitioner to release the four-
wheeler vehicle of the petitioner namely Maruti
Suzuki Fronx Car bearing Registration No. BR-
01 HG-9897 which has been seized by the police
in connection with Ram Krishna Nagar Police
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
2/14
Case No. 876/2023 dated 25.12.2023 for
offences under section 8(c). 21(c), 25 and 29 of
the NDPS Act.
ii. For direction to the respondents
concerned to release the four-wheeler vehicle of
the petitioner namely Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car
bearing Registration No. BR-01 HG-9897 which
has been seized by the police in connection with
Ram Krishna Nagar Police Case No. 876/2023
dated 25.12.2023 for offences under section 8(c),
21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.”
2. On 25th of December, 2023, the police, attached to
Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station, were conducting vehicle
checking duty under the leadership of one Ravi Ranjan Kumar
Singh, ASI. During vehicle checking duty, the above-named
police officer received information that five persons were
travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car and one person was
following the said car by a Honda Shine Motorcycle. It was also
informed that the said persons assembled at Masaurhi More for
selling Narcotic Drugs (smack). Police tried to stop the said car
but seeing the police party, the travellers were trying to flee
away. However, the police party managed to apprehend them.
On being asked, they disclosed their names as Abhishek Kumar
Gupta, Monu Singh @ Aditya Raj, Abhishek Kumar, Yuvraj @
Abhiraj Kumar, Amit Raj @ Atul and Sunny Kumar. On search,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
3/14
police recovered one black coloured plastic packet containing
506 grams of smack from the lap of the accused Abhishek
Kumar Gupta and various other articles were recovered from the
other accused persons. On interrogation, the said Abhishek
Kumar Gupta and Amit Raj @ Atul disclosed that there
associates, namely, Himanshu Kumar along with Rahul Kumar
and Rohit Kumar procured the above-named Narcotic Drug.
After handing over the packet of smack, Rohit Kumar and Rahul
Kumar successfully fled away seeing police party. It was
disclosed by Amit Raj @ Atul that the Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car
belongs to his father, namely, Vijay Kumar Raut. Police seized
the Narcotic Drug and the offending car; arrested the accused
persons; and registered Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 876 of
2023, dated 25th of December, 2023, under Sections 8(c), 21(c),
3. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the
seized Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car, filed an application before the
Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Patna for return of the said
vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge, Patna relying on the
provision contained in Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, rejected
the application made by the petitioner and refused to return the
said seized car to its registered owner. Challenging the said
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
4/14
order, the present writ application has been filed by the
petitioner.
4. At the outset, a question was raised as to whether an
application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable against a judicial order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in exercise of his judicial functions.
5. In Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, it was observed in
Paragraph Nos. 32 to 34 as hereunder::-
“32. However, as observed earlier, the
entire case put up by the first informant on the
face of it appears to be concocted and
fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the
parameters laid down by this Court for quashing
of an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The
parameters are:–
“(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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
5/14purview 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
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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
6/14accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
33. In our opinion, the present case
falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply
referred to above.
34. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking either
the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and a little more closely. We
say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it
will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
7/14
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple
FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged.
6. On the same point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, was pleased to hold that when
FIR contains allegation of malicious criminal proceedings and
harassment by the authorities and prima facie does not reveal
any offence, the Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
8/14
Article 226 of the Constitution can quash the FIR.
7. The last judgement on this line is delivered by the
Hon’ble Supreme is Kim Wansoo v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 17. Paragraph No. 11 of the
said judgement is relevant and quoted below:-
“11. In the contextual situation, it is
also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court
in Mohammad Wajid. v. State of U.P.5,
whereunder this Court, in so far as it is relevant,
held thus:–
“34………it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need
not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
9/14investigation….”
8. It is important to note that in all the aforementioned
cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided as to whether an
application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable for quashing an FIR.
9. However, in Radhey Shyam & Anr., v. Chhabi
Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, a three Judges of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a judicial order passed by a
Civil Court is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In subsequent decision, in State of Jharkhand v.
Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. reported in (2019) 4 SCC
214. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took the same view.
11. Again in Neelam Manmohan Attavar v.
Manmohan Attavar reported in (2021) 16 SCC 536, the Apex
Court held that writ challenging judgement delivered by Single
Judge of the High Court in exercise of criminal revisional
jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Supreme Court as
alternative remedies is available before the High Court as well
as the Supreme Court.
12. The same view was taken by the High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Abdul Majeed Ganie v. Abdul
Rahim Bhat reported in 2022 SCCOnline J&K 728.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
10/14
13. In the instant case, the petitioner has not come
forward to quash a criminal proceeding on the ground of
malicious FIR or other grounds delinted in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. The petitioner filed the
instant writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge rejecting an application for return of the
seized vehicle.
14. Referring to a decision, passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench in Cr. WJC No. 1491 of 2022, dated 20 th of July, 2023,
Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court entertained the writ petition against an order of
rejection of return of seized vehicle.
15. I have carefully gone through the above-
mentioned unreported decision in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1491 of 2022,
dated 20th of July, 2023 and found that in the said decision, the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey
Shyam & Anr (supra), Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors
(supra), Neelam Manmohan Attavar (supra) and Abdul
Majeed Ganie (supra) were not considered. Therefore, in my
considered view, judgment in Cr. WJC No. 1491 of 2022 did not
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
11/14
give answer to the question with regard to maintainability of the
writ petition against a judicial order which has been raised by
this Court.
16. At the same time, this Court considers that the
petitioner has filed the application also under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India
vests the power of superintendence of the High Court over the
Courts inferior to it. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, a Judicial Order can also be challenged in addition to the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 read
with Section 442 of the BNSS.
17. Under such circumstances, this Court proposes to
deal with the instant application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to consider the correctness, legality and
propriety of the impugned order dated 13.05.2024.
18. In the instant case, the petitioner submits that he is
the owner of the seized Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car. The seized car
was allegedly used in transporting Narcotic Drugs in the absence
of the knowledge and permission of the petitioner.
19. It is needless to say that if the owner of the vehicle
/ conveyance proved that his vehicle was used in the
commission of the offence without his knowledge and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
12/14
connivance and he has taken all reasonable precautions against
such use, the conveyance cannot be confiscated despite it being
used in the commission of the alleged offence. Section 60(3)
applies only when the vehicle carrying Narcotic Drugs was used
with the knowledge or connivance of the owner or his agent.
Only because the son of the petitioner was found inside the
seized car, it would not automatically mean that the owner of the
car permitted his son to use the said car in carrying the Narcotic
Drugs or that Narcotic Drugs was being carried in connivance of
the owner himself and the person in-charge of the vehicle /
conveyance.
20. I have come to this decision because of the fact
that the petitioner was not made an accused in the above-
mentioned case. There is no allegation in the FIR that the seized
vehicle was used in carrying Narcotic Drugs with the knowledge
or connivance of the petitioner and his son.
21. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get return of the seized
vehicle on certain conditions.
22. At this stage, it is apposite for the Court to refer to
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat., reported in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
13/14
(2002) 10 SCC 283 and General Insurance Council Ors. v.
State of A.P & Ors., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768.
23. Detention of a seized car under open sky will
diminish its road-worthiness and general condition.
24. Therefore, the instant application is allowed, on
contest.
25. The petitioner is entitled to get back the seized
Maruti Suzuki Fronx Car subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of
Rs. 5 Lakhs to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge
Patna;
(ii) before handing over the car to the petitioner, a
detailed Punchnama of the said car, after taking its photograph,
shall be prepared;
(iii) the petitioner shall execute bond that the car in
question shall be produced as and when required at the time of
trial or confiscation proceeding; and
(iv) the petitioner shall not change the nature,
character and colour of the car till the disposal of the criminal
case and also shall not make any third party interest over the
said car till the pendency of the trial and/or confiscation
proceeding, if any.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1481 of 2024(3) dt.26-03-2025
14/14
26. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link