Patna High Court
SANJAY KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and a prima facie case exists, therefore the petition for quashing the FIR is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sub‑Inspector Sanjay Kumar, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR No. 388 of 2018 registered at Sirdalla Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 225(A), 225(B), 201, 188 of the IPC and Sections 51, 52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner illegally released two accused arrested with illicit liquor. The High Court examined the FIR, noted that the allegations are serious and that a prima facie case exists, and referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 on the limited circumstances for quashing. Applying those principles, the Court held that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and the petition for quashing cannot be entertained. Consequently, the application was dismissed and the Superintendent of Police was directed to complete the investigation within three months and report back.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting denial of a quashing order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim stay of investigation or a direction of ‘no coercive steps’ during the pendency of the quashing petition.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Neeharika Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra apply to deny the quashing of the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 51, 52
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 173, 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 188, 201, 225A, 225B
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- cognizable offence
- investigation
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- Indian Penal Code
- interim stay of investigation
- anticipatory bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33825 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2018 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
SANJAY KUMAR Son of Keshav Mahto Resident of Village- Khutkat, P.O.
and P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the FIR bearing Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 388 of 2018 registered
for the offence under Sections 225(A), 225(B), 201, 188 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 51, 52 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. As per the prosecution case, the SHO of Sirdalla
Police Station has alleged that the petitioner, who is Sub-
Inspector, has released two accused persons illegally who were
arrested with illegal liquor.
4. I have gone through the FIR and have also perused
the materials available on record.
5. From the records of the case, it appears that the
allegation against the petitioner are serious in nature and prima
facie case exists against the petitioner.
6. In these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner
cannot be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/8
Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2021) 19
SCC 401 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down
the guidelines for quashing of the FIR. Paragraph no.33 of the
aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
“33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
"no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency
of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and in what circumstances and whether the High Court
would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest
the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted”
during the investigation or till the final report/charge-
sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/ not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and / or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final
conclusions are as under:-
(33.1) Police has the statutory right and duty
under the relevant provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence.
(33.2) Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences.
(33.3) It is only in cases where no cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/8
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed
in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to
go on.
(33.4) The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection,
as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of
rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
(33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or geruineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint.
(33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage.
(33.7) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than an ordinary
rule.
(33.8) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate
in two specific spheres of activities and
one ought not to tread over the other
sphere.
(33.9) The functions of the judiciary and the
police are complementary, not
overlapping.
(33.10) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage
of justice, the Court and the judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/8
process should not interfere at the stage
of investigation of offences.
(33.11) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according
to its whims or caprice.
(33.12) The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all
facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of
the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer
may file an appropriate report/summary
before the learned Magistrate which may
be considered by the learned Magistrate
in accordance with the known procedure.
(33.13) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty
on the court.
(33.14) However, at the same time, the court, if it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/8
thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by
this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur
(supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
(33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the
court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required
to consider on merits whether or not the
merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR.
(33.16) The aforesaid parameters would be
applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects
are required to be considered by the High
Court while passing an interim order in a
quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, an interim order of stay of
Investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order
should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/8
when the investigation is in progress and
the facts are hazy and the entire
evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain
itself from passing the interim order of
not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" and the accused should be
relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the
competent court. The High Court shall
not and as such is not justified in passing
the order of not to arrest and/or "no
coercive steps" either during the
Investigation or till the investigation is
completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C, while dismissing/disposing of
the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
(33.17) Even in a case where the High Court is
prima facie of the opinion that an
exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after
considering the broad parameters while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India referred to
hereinabove, the High Court has to give
brief reasons why such an interim order is
warranted and/or is required to be passed
so that it can demonstrate the application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
7/8
of mind by the Court and the higher
forum can consider what was weighed
with the High Court while passing such
an interim order.
(33.18) Whenever an interim order is passed by
the High Court of "no coercive steps to be
adopted" within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify
what does it mean by "no coercive steps
to be adopted" as the term "no coercive
steps to be adopted" can be said to be too
vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.”
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
8. During the course of argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the investigation of the case is
still pending.
9. In view of the above, the Superintendent of Police,
Nawada is directed to see to it that the investigation of the
aforesaid case is concluded within three months from today and
thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Nawada will file a
compliance report in this Court after three months.
10. The petitioner is given liberty to take appropriate
steps if charge-sheet is submitted against him after conclusion of
the investigation.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33825 of 2019(2) dt.27-01-2026
8/8
Superintendent of Police, Nawada through FAX for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…