Patna High Court
AMAR NATH @ RANA SHANKAR VAKIL @ RAM SHANKAR SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The High Court quashed the cognizance order and all proceedings as the allegations did not disclose any offence and were instituted mala fide.
Summary
The petitioner, Amar Nath, challenged a cognizance order dated 29‑05‑2014 taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, under IPC sections 406, 420 and 34. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had taken an election certificate from the informant, Manoj Kumar, and coerced him to vote for a particular candidate. The informant later filed a petition before the CJM stating that only a photocopy of the certificate was taken and that the FIR was motivated by local political rivalry, not a criminal offence. The High Court observed that even if the allegations were taken at face value they did not constitute any offence and the proceedings were mala fide. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the cognizance order and all related proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute an offence under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the proceedings are mala fide and can be quashed under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction as per State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- mala fide
- political rivalry
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- inherent jurisdiction
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40077 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2012 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
AMAR NATH @ RANA SHANKAR VAKIL @ RAM SHANKAR SINGH
Son of Late Siyaram Singh Resident of village- Barhiya, Ward No.- 3 P.S.-
Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Kameshwar Thakur Resident of village- Barhiya,
Ward no. 3 (Nauwa Toli), P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Onkar Nath, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP
For the O.P.No.2: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Aman Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the cognizance order
dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lakhisarai, in Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012 corresponding to
G.R. No. 648/2012, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections
406, 420 and 34 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant,
Manoj Kumar, was elected as Ward Commissioner in the 2012
election and had received an election certificate. The petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40077 of 2022 dt.23-06-2026
2/3
said to have told the informant that an affidavit was required to be
made for the election certificate. He took the certificate from him.
He directed him to cast his vote in favour of Shail Devi. He never
returned the certificate.
4. The counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of
the Court towards the fact that the informant himself filed a
petition before the learned CJM, Lakhisarai, wherein he disclosed
the real motive behind the FIR, which was to punish the petitioner
on account of local political rivalry. In the statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant and his wife stated that
the petitioner had taken only a photostatic copy of the certificate,
and that the case had been lodged solely due to village politics.
5. The case is peculiar, and the allegations, even if taken
at face value, do not make out any offence at all. The allegation is
that a certificate was taken and the informant was asked to vote for
a particular person. It later turned out that the certificate was only
a photostatic copy. Moreover, the informant himself gave up his
version in his petition before the learned CJM. Taking all this into
consideration, this appears to be a mala fide exercise arising out of
a local dispute, which has nothing to do with the offences alleged,
and the continuance of proceedings cannot be countenanced. The
present case squarely falls within the categories of cases
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40077 of 2022 dt.23-06-2026
3/3
enumerated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal and Others reported in 1999 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it
has been held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint, even if 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, and where the criminal proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fide and where the proceedings are
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court may
quash the same in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Barhiya P.S.
Case No. 60/2012 / G.R. No. 648/2012, and all proceedings arising
therefrom, including the cognizance order dated 29.05.2014 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, stand
quashed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.06.2026
Transmission Date 24.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.