Patna High Court
ASIM KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction under Section 482 to examine the veracity of the FIR allegations and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Asim Kumar, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No. 361 of 2021 alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 171 and 120(B) of the IPC, on the ground that the BETET certificate used for his appointment as a Panchayat Teacher was genuine. The State and the Vigilance Department opposed, submitting that the certificate was forged and that a prima facie case existed. The High Court observed that the petition raised disputed questions of fact and that the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 does not extend to testing the truth of allegations at the pre‑trial stage. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* and a recent SLP judgment, the Court held that such matters must be decided by the trial court after proper evidence is taken. Consequently, the application for quashment was dismissed, with the petitioner directed to raise any factual disputes before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR when the allegations involve disputed facts?
- Is there a prima facie case for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 171 and 120(B) IPC based on the alleged forged BETET certificate?
- Is the petitioner entitled to relief at the pre‑trial stage or must the matter be decided by the trial court?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 171, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- quashment of FIR
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- forgery
- cheating
- teacher appointment
- Bihar School Examination Board
- prima facie case
- disputed facts
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.412 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2021 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
ASIM KUMAR S/o Ram Dayal Sah R/v- Gauspur Sarsauna, P.O.- Gauspur
Sarsauna, Gauspur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Investigation Bureau, 6 Circular
Road, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance.
2. The petitioner in the present case prays for the
following relief(s):-
1. That, this an application for quashing
the First Information Report which is as Kalyanpur
P.S. Case No. 361 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021
offences under section 420, 467, 468, 171, 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code extent to the petitioner
pending before learned C.J.M. Samastipur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/7
the petitioner has sought the quashing of the F.I.R, which
was lodged in pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble
High Court to enquire with regard to the genuineness of the
appointments made of niyojit teachers, who were appointed
from 2006 to 2015 in the State of Bihar. It has been
submitted that, as per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R,
the informant has stated that during the enquiry in
Samastipur district, it was found that the BETET certificate
of the petitioner, who was appointed at Dharampur Primary
School, was forged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in the
year 2011 on the basis of the certificate given by the Bihar
School Examination Board (for brevity, the Board) to him.
It has been submitted that the petitioner had appeared for
the BETET examination and the certificate was, in fact,
issued by the Board and no forgery has been committed by
him. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated at the behest of the informant and there is
no illegality insofar as the certificates of the petitioner are
concerned.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/7
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the
supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been submitted that
the petitioner was terminated from service after lodging of
the instant F.I.R without any opportunity to defend himself
and that even the present F.I.R was lodged on the basis of
an ex-parte enquiry and no show-cause notice was ever
issued to the petitioner in order to enable him to establish
his bonafide.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it has been submitted that the F.I.R lodged
against the petitioner may be quashed in order to prevent
miscarriage of justice.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Vigilance opposes the application of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner had submitted a forged certificate
which is said to have been issued by the Board. Learned
counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that during the
course of enquiry, the Bihar School Examination Board,
Patna, vide letter no. BSEB/VVC/591/2021 dated
08.06.2021, informed that in the records of the Board,
Patna, the BETET result card submitted by the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
4/7
petitioner bearing particulars such as father’s name,
Ramdayal Sah, roll number 2323111708, category-BC,
year-2011, marks obtained-090 in Paper-I, result-qualified,
and serial number-06987, is actually in the name of another
person, namely Mahesh Ram, son of Rajdev Ram.
8. The Board has pointed out that the result card
submitted by the petitioner has been marked as fake by the
Board and therefore the Vigilance, upon inquiry, has come
to the conclusion that the petitioner had got himself
appointed as a niyojit primary teacher by tampering with his
name, his father’s name, his category, marks obtained and
the BETET-2011 result card serial number, which was
originally issued in the name of Mahesh Ram.
9. Learned counsel for the Vigilance further
submits that on account of a prima facie cognizable offence
being found, the present F.I.R, being Kalyanpur P.S. Case
No. 361 of 2021, was registered against the accused
petitioner. It has been submitted that the offences as stated
in the F.I.R are clearly made out, as the petitioner had got
himself appointed on the basis of a forged BETET result
card by presenting it as a genuine document before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
5/7
Gram Panchayat Shiksha Niyojan Ikai, Teera, Block-
Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur and thus committed
offences of cheating, forgery of documents and using forged
documents as genuine. Learned counsel for the Vigilance
thus submits that there is no illegality in the lodging of the
F.I.R, as a prima facie case has been found against the
petitioner.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court finds that the petitioner has raised disputed
questions of fact. It is no longer res integra that this Court,
while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, has no
jurisdiction to examine the correctness or veracity of the
allegations levelled in an F.I.R.
11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down
various guidelines in this regard, wherein the aforesaid
proposition finds support, and one such judicial
pronouncement is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR
1992 SC 604.
12. Learned counsel for the Department of
Vigilance has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 1500 of 2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
6/7
and analogous cases, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was dealing with a case in which forged and fabricated
documents were used to procure a tender in favour of the
appellant therein. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment, which
is relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow:
“17. The High Court ought to have
considered the complicity of the accused in case
of forgery, which will have to be addressed after
a proper appreciation of evidence and such
appreciation of evidence can be done only by
undertaking the initial process i.e. by
conducting the trial on the aspect of forgery.
The summons order was only at an initial stage
and at such a nascent stage, the High Court
ought not to have recorded the finding on the
aspect of forgery.”
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of
the fact that the aspect relating to the complexity of the
involvement of the present accused would require proper
appreciation of facts, which can be undertaken only during
trial and not at a nascent stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.412 of 2023(3) dt.13-01-2026
7/7
14. From the facts of the present case, it is clear
that the petitioner is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to test the veracity of
the facts, having challenged the inquiry conducted by the
Vigilance. This Court, therefore, finds that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief at this stage, as this Court does not
have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner.
15. Having regard to the foregoing discussions,
this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in
the case of the petitioner and the same is dismissed. It goes
without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise
all issues relating to the veracity of the documents or
disputed questions of fact before the learned trial court at
the appropriate stage, if so advised, which shall be
considered by the learned trial court without being
prejudiced by the rejection of the present application.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…