Patna High Court
Amant Sharma @ Santosh SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the prosecution does not disclose any offence under the cited provisions and is mala fide, therefore the proceedings are quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Amant Sharma, was charged under IPC Sections 188 and 353 and Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct Examination Act for allegedly disrupting an examination centre. He contended that he was merely dropping off his ill niece, had no criminal intent, and that the case was fabricated. The State opposed the quash petition. The High Court examined the FIR and found that the alleged conduct did not satisfy the elements of the offences and was a mala fide prosecution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounts to an offence under IPC Section 188 (disobedience to public servant’s order).
- Whether the conduct amounts to an offence under IPC Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant).
- Whether the conduct falls within Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct Examination Act.
- Whether the prosecution is an abuse of process warranting quash of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 188, 353
Subjects
- quash petition
- abuse of process
- IPC 188
- IPC 353
- Bihar Conduct Examination Act
- examination centre disturbance
- false case
- Bhajan Lal test
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2683 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2017 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna
======================================================
Amant Sharma @ Santosh Sharma Sri Awadhesh Sharma, Resident of- Indira
Nagar, Road no.4.,P.S. - Jakkanpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 03-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-III, Danapur in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S.
Case No. 32 of 2017 by which cognizance was taken by the
Court below for the offence under Sections 188 and 353 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct
Examination Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the written report
lodged by Dr. Md. Qamar Saquib (the informant), is that the
informant was appointed as the Center Superintendent for the
Intermediate Examination, 2017, at Paras Nath Kushwaha
College. On 17.02.2017, at about 9:40 A.M., while the deputed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2683 of 2019(6) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
Magistrate, Smt. Poonam Sinha, Sri Deepak Kumar, and other
staff were preparing to distribute the question papers to the
students, an unauthorized person entered the Examination
Control Room and engaged in a heated altercation with the
authorities present. It is alleged that the petitioner disturbed the
ongoing process, created hindrance, and engaged in disruptive
behavior, including shouting and hitting his hands on the table.
It is further alleged that security personnel at the Examination
Center intervened and escorted the petitioner out. Later, the
informant came to know from the police that the petitioner’s
name was Amant Sharma @ Santosh Sharma, and that he had
arrived in a Scorpio vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the
petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged in the First
Information Report (FIR). The petitioner has falsely been
implicated in the present false and fabricated case due to the
false ego of the authorities present at the said examination
center. He further submits that the niece of the petitioner was an
appearing candidate at the examination on the relevant date, and
the petitioner had only gone to drop her off at the Examination
Center. Due to his niece’s illness, the petitioner brought his
vehicle closer to the Center to assist her.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2683 of 2019(6) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that when the petitioner was returning, he was
surrounded by police personnel, who allegedly began using
abusive language towards him, resulting in a heated altercation
between the petitioner and the authorities. He further submits
that the matter was subsequently resolved through a
compromise, and the petitioner believed that the situation had
returned to normal, after which he returned to his residence.
However, the petitioner later discovered that a false and
fabricated case had been filed against him.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that from the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that no
mala fide intention has been attributed to the petitioner, and thus
it would be clear that no criminal offence has been made out
against him.
7. The learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner.
8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record. This Court
is of the view that the ingredients of the offences under Sections
188 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 10 of
the Bihar Conduct Examination Act, are not made out in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2683 of 2019(6) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
present case. The actions attributed to the petitioner do not
prima facie constitute a criminal offence, as the petitioner had
simply taken his niece to the examination. Continuation of the
present prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court. It is evident that the
prosecution against the petitioner is mala fide and has been
launched solely to wreak vengeance.
9. In view of the foreging dicussions and considering
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana & Ors V/s Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335., this application stands allowed.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 15.03.2018 passed
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Danapur in
connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2017 and all
subsequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are
hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…