Patna High Court

Shree Ram Sahni @ Sriram SahniversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PRAVEEN KUMAR

Holding

The quashing application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner filed a quashing application challenging an FIR (Rosera PS Case No. 573 of 2023) alleging offences under Sections 30(a), 36, 41 and 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly transporting 1800 litres of foreign liquor. The petitioner contended that the vehicle did not belong to him, that only suspicion existed, and that no substantive material linked him to the seizure, having also filed representations with the investigating agency without any investigation. The State opposed the quash petition, asserting that the investigation was ongoing and that the petitioner was earlier made an accused in an excise case. The Court observed that the FIR was at a nascent investigative stage, that there was a suspicion against the petitioner, and that the merits of his defence could be examined later, not at the quash stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the quashing application as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of substantive material and mere suspicion against the petitioner.
Whether the stage of investigation precludes the court from quashing the FIR at this juncture.

Subjects

quash petition
FIR
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
excise offence
suspicion
investigation stage
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16691 of 2024
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-573 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Shree Ram Sahni @ Sriram Sahni S/o Raj Kumar Sahni @ Rajkumar Sahani
                 Resident of Village- Chaurgahtiya, Rahua, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Bhubneshwar Mahto, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-03-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. Petitioner through this quashing application has

                   challenged the First Information Report bearing Rosera P.S. Case No.

                   573 of 2023 for offence under Sections 30 (a), 36, 41 and 62 of Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, the police officer has alleged

                   that he received an information that that the petitioner brought a

                   consignment of liquor in a pick up van which was parked on a road

                   and upon such information, he along with the police party reached

                   the place where the van was parked. It is alleged that on seeing the

                   police party, 4-5 persons fled away and from the vehicle altogether

                   1800 litres of foreign liquor of different brands was recovered and

                   accordingly seizure list was prepared.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16691 of 2024(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                       only a suspicion has been raised. Vehicle does not belong to him and

                       there is no substantive and tangible material against him and the

                       petitioner    has    also    filed several      representation before   the

                       investigating agency but investigation has not been done.

                                    5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the

                       prayer of this application.

                                    6. Having considered the facts and circumstances,

                       particularly the fact that the case is under investigation it relates to

                       quashing of F.I.R which is at its nascent stage and there is a suspicion

                       against the petitioner that he may also be involved and as per

                       submission of petitioner he is also earlier made accused in excise

                       case and the case requires thorough investigation in this regard and

                       the veracity of the arguments and the defence of the petitioner may

                       be considered at appropriate stage at least not at the stage of quashing

                       of F.I.R.

                                    7. This application is devoid of merits and is accordingly

                       dismissed.



                                                   (Praveen Kumar, J)
vashudha/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…