Raju Kanu @ Raju GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22192 of 2025
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2020 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar
======================================================
Raju Kanu @ Raju Gupta S/o- Late Shivlal Sahu @ Shivlal Kanu Residence
of Village-PO PS- Koransarai District-Buxar



                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus


The State of Bihar



                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

 Date : 08-01-2026

              Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

 counsel for the State.

              2. That the instant application is being filed for

 quashing of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned

 A.D.J.-1, Cum Special Judge SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Buxar in

 connection with N.D.P.S. Case no. 30 of 2020 arising out of

 Koransarai P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020 dated 09.06.2020 lodged

 under Sections 20, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 by which

 cognizance of the offences has been taken under Sections 21(b),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           2/10




         27A, 29 N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner.

                      3. On 29.06.2020, the S.H.O. of Koransarai P.S., on

         secret information, apprehended co-accused Dharmendra Ram

         @ Dharmendra Dom while he was fleeing and recovered 56

         grams of heroin from his possession in presence of witnesses.

         The co-accused disclosed Raju Kanu, petitioner herein, as the

         source of the contraband, after which the seizure was made and

         the F.I.R. was lodged.

                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on

         the basis of his past antecedents, without any independent or

         incriminating material. As is evident from the F.I.R., recovery of

         56 grams of heroin was effected solely from the co-accused, and

         the petitioner has been implicated merely on the disclosure

         statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in law.

         During investigation, the police found the case true only against

         the co-accused and submitted charge-sheet accordingly, while

         no material was found to connect the petitioner with the alleged

         offence.

                      5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

         that the case diary further records that during the relevant period

         the petitioner was under medical treatment for a fractured leg
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           3/10




         and was unable to move, and his mobile tower location was

         found in his native village, clearly ruling out his involvement.

         There are no independent witnesses and material contradictions

         exist in the prosecution case. Even if the allegations are taken at

         face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the

         petitioner, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to

         abuse of the process of the Court; hence, the impugned order

         dated 19.02.2025 deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of

         justice.

                      6. Learned counsel for the State have supported the

         impugned order taking cognizance stating that the court below

         after considering all the materials against the petitioner took

         cognizance under Sections 21(b), 27(a), 29 of the NDPS Act.

                      7. Having heard submissions made by both parties

         and the material placed on record, it appears that upon

         completion of the supplementary investigation relating to

         petitioner, supplementary case diary was submitted before the

         Court on 15.10.2020, and as noted in paragraph 24 thereof, the

         Investigating Officer opined that no case was found to be true

         against the petitioner and accordingly he was not sent up for

         trial, though admittedly no formal final form under Section

         173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted pursuant to the supplementary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           4/10




         investigation.

                      8. The record further discloses that in Koransarai P.S.

         Case No. 57 of 2020, original charge-sheet No. 65 of 2020 dated

         30.08.2020 under Sections 20, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act has

         already been submitted against co-accused Dharmendra Ram @

         Dharmendra Dom, pursuant to which N.D.P.S. Case No. 14 of

         2020 is pending before the court below. As per the FIR and the

         case diary, 56 grams of heroin was recovered from the

         possession of the said co-accused, who, in the presence of an

         Executive Magistrate and police officials, disclosed that he had

         procured the contraband from the present petitioner.

                      9. The learned court below has considered the entire

         material available on record, including the disclosure statement,

         recovery, and the manner in which supplementary investigation

         was conducted. The court below has also recorded a finding that

         the    Investigating       Officer       acted     negligently   during   the

         supplementary investigation and that the absence of a formal

         final form cannot curtail the power of the Court to take

         cognizance on the basis of material already on record..

                      10. In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, reported in

         1967 SCC Online SC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

         observed in Paragraph 19 as follows:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           5/10




                                              “The      question   can   also   be
                                 considered from another point of view.
                                 Supposing the police send a report viz. a
                                 charge-sheet, under Section 170 of the Code.
                                 As we have already pointed out, the
                                 Magistrate is not bound to accept that
                                 report, when he considers the matter
                                 judicially. But can he differ from the police
                                 and call upon them to submit a final report,
                                 under Section 169? In our opinion, the
                                 Magistrate has no such power. If he has no
                                 such power, in law, it also follows that the
                                 Magistrate has no power to direct the police
                                 to submit a charge-sheet, when the police
                                 have submitted a final report that no case is
                                 made out for sending the accused for trial.
                                 The functions of the Magistracy and the
                                 police are entirely different, and though, in
                                 the circumstances mentioned earlier, the
                                 Magistrate may or may not accept the
                                 report, and take suitable action according to
                                 law, he cannot certainly infringe upon the
                                 jurisdiction of the police by compelling them
                                 to change their opinion, so as to accord with
                                 his view.”
                      11. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

         although a Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police

         and may apply an independent judicial mind to the materials on

         record, he cannot compel the investigating agency to alter the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           6/10




         nature of its report. Whether the police submit a charge-sheet

         under Section 170 Cr.P.C. or a final report under Section 169

         Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may accept or refuse the report and

         proceed in accordance with law, but cannot direct the police to

         file a different report. The Court emphasized that the functions

         of investigation vested in the police and the judicial functions of

         the Magistracy are distinct, and any direction requiring the

         police to change their opinion would amount to an

         impermissible encroachment upon the statutory domain of the

         investigating agency.

                       12. This Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, a

         meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudication on the

         truthfulness of the allegations is neither required nor

         permissible. The test is whether a prima facie case is made out.

         On the basis of materials collected during investigation,

         including the recovery, disclosure, and linkage of the petitioner

         with the alleged offence, the learned court below has rightly

         formed an opinion that prima facie offences under Sections

         21(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act are disclosed against the

         petitioner.

                       13. It is well settled that the power under Section 482

         Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, and quashing of criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           7/10




         proceedings at the threshold is justified only in exceptional

         cases where no offence is made out or where the proceedings

         amount to abuse of process of law.

                      14. The legal position with regard to the scope of

         judicial interference at the initial stage of criminal proceedings

         is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

         Court. In State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC

         335, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that where the

         allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, taken at their face

         value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of

         a cognizable offence, the courts ought not to interfere at the

         threshold. The Court cautioned that the extraordinary or inherent

         jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised

         sparingly and with great circumspection, and only in the rarest

         of rare cases, lest it stifle a legitimate prosecution at its

         inception.

                      15. Similarly, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,

         (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court delineated the parameters

         governing the exercise of jurisdiction at the stage of cognizance

         or framing of charge. It was held that at this preliminary stage,

         the court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of

         the evidence or evaluate its probative value as if conducting a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           8/10




         trial. The court is only required to determine whether the

         material placed on record, if taken at face value, discloses the

         existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

         The likelihood of the prosecution ultimately resulting in

         conviction is wholly immaterial at this stage.

                      16. Further, in State of Tamil Nadu vs. N Suresh

         Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, the Supreme Court reiterated and

         reaffirmed that the test to be applied at the stage of framing of

         charge is whether there exists a strong suspicion, based on the

         material on record, that the accused has committed the offence.

         The Court emphasized that even if the materials give rise to

         grave suspicion, as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt,

         it is sufficient to justify proceeding against the accused. The

         probative value, credibility, or admissibility of the evidence is a

         matter to be assessed during trial and not at the preliminary

         stage.

                      17. Thus, the consistent judicial view is that at the

         inception of criminal proceedings, the courts must refrain from

         embarking upon a roving enquiry into the merits of the case or

         substituting their own assessment in place of a full-fledged trial.

         So long as the allegations and supporting material disclose the

         commission of an offence and raise a strong suspicion against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                           9/10




         the accused, the continuation of the proceedings is warranted in

         the interest of justice.

                      18. In the present case, police after completion of due

         investigation, did not sent the petitioner on trial, whereas the

         learned Magistrate, upon independent judicial scrutiny of the

         case diary and materials on record, took cognizance of the

         offence, observing that the police opinion was erroneous. Such

         an action is consistent with the law laid down in Abhinandan

         Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra, 1967 SCC Online SC 107

         which affirms that while a Magistrate cannot compel the police

         to alter their report, he is not bound by their conclusions and

         may take cognizance if an offence is disclosed. As the

         Magistrate has exercised statutory jurisdiction without directing

         the police to file a charge-sheet, no illegality or abuse of process

         is made out.

                      19. In view of the above facts and settled legal

         position, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or

         jurisdictional      error    in    the    impugned   cognizance   order

         warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The issues

         raised by the petitioner relate to matters of defence, which can

         be appropriately adjudicated during trial.

                      20. Accordingly, the quashing petition is dismissed.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22192 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
                                                        10/10




                      The petitioner shall appear before the court below and face trial

                      in accordance with law.




                                            (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          02.02.2026
Transmission Date       02.02.2026