Patna High Court
SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA DHEERAJ @ PRAKASH CHANDRA DHEERAJ @ P. C. DHEERAJversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order taking cognizance of the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC is quashed as the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Chandra Dheeraj, sought to quash the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC arising from alleged falsification of postal delivery records. The FIR alleged that the petitioner updated the computer system to show delivery of envelopes that had not actually been delivered, but provided no details of the user ID used or any dishonest intent. The Court held that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any mens rea, and failed to establish the essential ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy. It observed that at most the petitioner’s conduct amounted to negligence, already addressed in departmental proceedings, and that continuing criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC.
- Whether the prosecution has established the requisite mens rea for cheating, criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of a prima facie case amounts to abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash order
- FIR vagueness
- mens rea
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- conspiracy
- abuse of process
- negligence
- postal fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1146 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-713 Year-2017 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA DHEERAJ @ PRAKASH CHANDRA
DHEERAJ @ P. C. DHEERAJ S/O SRI MAHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
VILLAGE- KHESRAHI, P.O.- KHESRAHI, PS. PATEPUR, DIST.
VAISHALI. ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-05-2026
Heard Ms. Eashita Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.02.2018, passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S.
Case No.713 of 2017 (G.R. No.8120/2017), whereby and
whereunder the learned Court had been pleased to take
cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,
120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘IPC’).
3. Brief facts, as narrated in the F.I.R., giving rise to
the present case, are being enumerated as hereunder:
3.1. The informant, namely, Lallan Singh, Sub-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
2/10
Inspector of Police, Kotwali Police Station, Patna received an
information that a bag has been found in an abandoned
condition on the road near the Income Tax Round about and
upon receiving such information, a raiding team reached the
place of occurrence and in presence of two independent
witnesses searched the said bag and found 537 yellow coloured
sealed envelopes with Bhartiya Chiktsha Kendriya Parishad,
related with election 2017, which was addressed to the Special
Secretary-cum-Electoral Officer, Bhartiya Chiktsha Kendriya
Parishad, New Delhi (Nirvanchan) Rajya Swasthya Samiti
(Nirvanchan Karyalaya), 3rd Floor, Sheikhpura, Patna-14, Bihar.
The said envelopes were bearing the bar-code and the speed
post tickets. Five other envelopes were also found with the
similar address, bar coding and seizure list was prepared.
3.2. Upon enquiry from the G.P.O. office, it was
found out that all the envelopes had been issued from the
R.M.S., Patna by speed post. It was disclosed by one of the
agents that these envelopes were booked on 18.11.2017 and the
outsourcing collecting agent, who had booked the articles,
namely, Dilip Kumar, further admitted that a person had brought
1000 envelopes on the said date, which was booked by him.
However, he did not have any satisfactory answer as to why the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
3/10
envelopes were accepted with incomplete address as the same
was not according to rules.
3.3. One Marketing Executive, Shalabh Kumar
Karn disclosed during enquiry that all the articles were sent to
National Sorting Home (NSH) and after enquiring from the
NSH and upon perusal of document, it was gathered that the
said article was indicated in the delivery bill and also reflected
in the mail list. However, the same was not received, as such,
both Amarnath Prasad (Sorting Assistant of NSH) and Shalabh
Kumar Karn were suspected to be guilty in the said matter.
3.4. In course of further enquiry, it was found that
status of all the articles, upon tracking the same on India
website, were found delivered on 20.11.2017 at 11 am. One
Manish Kumar posted as Divisional System Admin in the
Server Room further disclosed, upon enquiry, that the updating
on this system has been done by one Marketing Executive of
R.M.S., Patna, namely, Prakash Chandra Dheeraj, who was not
found during enquiry.
4. Upon the above-mentioned written report in the
nature of enquiry report, forwarded to the Inspector of Police-
cum-S.H.O., Kotwali Police Station, Patna, the present F.I.R.,
bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.713 of 2017 dated 17.12.2017
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
4/10
was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the
IPC against the employees of the R.M.S., Patna i.e. the Delivery
Agent, Dilip Kumar, Serving Assistant, Amarnath Prasad,
Marketing Executive at BPC Office, Salabh Kumar Karn, Prem
Chandra Dheeraj (Petitioner) and others with the allegation of
entering into a conspiracy by way of which the postal ballots of
the Central Council of Indian Medicine for Ayurveda and Unani
System was shown to be delivered by updating, without the
delivery of the said speed post being done at its destinations.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that an extremely vague allegation is disclosed in the F.I.R. with
regard to the petitioner that he had updated the delivery of the
article in question on the computer system without the same
being delivered. However, in the exhaustive F.I.R., it was not
disclosed as to from whose user ID the delivery has been
updated. She has further submitted that even for the sake of
argument, if it is accepted that the delivery of the article has
been updated by the use of the petitioner’s user ID, by no stretch
of imagination, any criminal intent for the same can be imputed.
Neither the F.I.R nor the materials collected during course of
investigation disclose in any way that the petitioner was the
beneficiary of the alleged conspiracy.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
5/10
6. It has further been submitted that the materials
relied upon by the prosecution, which has been taken note in the
order taking cognizance, does not attribute any dishonest
intention to the petitioner and the so-called enquiry conducted
by the I.O. is perfunctory and lacks evidentiary value inasmuch
as, it is based only on statements of other persons who were also
arrayed as accused. It is thus submitted that the ingredients of
the offences under Section 406, 409, 420 and 120B of IPC are
completely absent and as such the impugned order taking
cognizance is fit to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted additionally that the petitioner had faced departmental
proceeding in this regard and was awarded token of punishment
for his negligence and carelessness during his duty in the BPC,
Patna RMS. It was considered that he had unblemished past
services.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Priya Sharan
Singh, learned APP for the State has opposed the present
application and also filed a counter affidavit through the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna indicating therein that during
the course of investigation in para 11 of the case diary, the case
of the prosecution stands supported and the name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
6/10
petitioner features in the same making allegation of criminal
conspiracy as the article was not delivered to its destination and
was found lying on the road. Paras 4 and 37 of the case diary
have also been referred to by the learned APP for contending
that there is material collected against the petitioner during
investigation, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned
order as a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner
which is the only requirement, at the stage of taking cognizance.
9. Before analysing the rival contentions, it is
clarified that since the cognizance order is of the year 2018, a
report with regard to the stage of the case had been called for
vide order dated 13.02.2026 and it has been reported that till
date charges have not been framed.
10. After having heard the rival contentions of the
parties and going through the materials on record including the
counter affidavit filed by the State and the reply to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that
the allegations made in the F.I.R. suffer from the vice of
vaguness. The exhaustive F.I.R., which was lodged after
conducting a detailed enquiry, does not appear indicative of any
criminal intention on the part of the petitioner. The only
allegation that has been made against him in the entire narration
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
7/10
of events is that he updated the system showing delivery of
certain articles, which had not reached at its place of destination.
11. The counter affidavit and the order impugned
refer only to paragraph no. 11 of the case diary and upon perusal
of the same, I find that it contains almost the same content of the
F.I.R. The other paragraph no.4 referred by the learned APP
contains merely the further statement of informant, which is
again a reiteration and repetition of facts and paragraph no.37
rather talks of irregularity in discharge of duty without imputing
any criminal intent. The materials do not disclose the existence
any criminal intention or mens rea on the part of the petitioner
which can form the basis of making him an accused in a
criminal case. As a matter of fact, the materials on record do not
even vaguely suggest as to how an offence of cheating has been
committed, who has been cheated, by whom and why. All these
questions remain totally unanswered by the prosecution.
12. The ingredients to constitute an offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC i.e. (i) deception of a person;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement given by a person
intentionally causing another person to deliver any property and
(iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making inducement,
are non-existent in the present case. No fraudulent or dishonest
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
8/10
inducement in delivery of any property has been attributed to
the petitioner, much less, there being any criminal intention of
cheating right at the inception of the offence.
13. So far as the offence of criminal breach of
trust under the provisions of Section 406 and 409 of the IPC is
concerned, the same is also not made out as there is no direct
entrustment of public property given to the petitioner and even
if it is considered that entrustment was made to the Postal
Department, there is no allegation, whatsoever of any dishonest
misappropriation of such property or the conversion of the said
property for the use of the petitioner.
14. Thus, the facts and uncontroverted allegations
do not disclose the commission of a criminal offence at all,
much less the offence as alleged. The implication of the
petitioner in a criminal case, thus does not seem to be proper in
absence of the essential ingredients of the offence being in
existence. The conspiracy angle has also not been made out
between the different accused persons and in case of any
negligence in duty, responsibility accordingly can be fixed upon
the employee of the department.
15. Taking an over all view of the entire facts and
circumstances, at best, a case of negligence or dereliction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
9/10
duty can be said to be made out against the petitioner. It has
been pointed out that the petitioner has already faced a
departmental proceeding for the negligence and carelessness
shown by him in the discharge of his official duty and he has
already been awarded a token of punishment to meet the natural
justice, having also taken into consideration his unblemished
past services. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its
several judicial pronouncements including in a judgment passed
in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India
Infoline Ltd. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 505 and Vesa Holding
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293,
wherein it has been held that where the basic ingredients of an
offence are not made out continuance of criminal proceeding
against the accused amounts to abuse of process of law.
16. The entire discussion leads this Court to reach
a considered conclusion that the present case squarely falls
within the ambit of clause (1) and (3) of the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
which are as follows:
(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) …………...
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1146 of 2024 dt.01-05-2026
10/10
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.
17. This Court is, thus, convinced in view of the
facts and the law laid down that the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present petitioner would only amount to
the abuse the process of the Court as the allegations, at best,
would only make out a case of dereliction of duty on the part of
the petitioner which would entail civil and administrative
consequences.
18. In such view of the matter, the order dated
15.02.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No.713 of 2017 (G.R.
No.8120/2017), whereby thef cognizance has been taken is
hereby quashed and this application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J.)
Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.05.2026
Transmission Date 06.05.2026
Checking your session…