Patna High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The FIR is quashed as it does not disclose the commission of any offence and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers from Basudhar village, were charged in an FIR for alleged forgery, fraud and cheating in obtaining loans under a government scheme, but they had repaid the loans and obtained No Dues certificates from the bank, which also stated no irregularity. They contended that the FIR was filed to harass them due to a long‑standing civil partition dispute with the informant. The High Court examined whether the FIR, even if taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 467, 468 and 420 IPC and whether it was an abuse of process. Finding the allegations vague, unsupported by specific facts, and noting the bank’s lack of any claim of loss, the Court held that the prosecution was mala fide and intended to exert pressure. Applying the principles of Section 482 CrPC and Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings, allowing the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case of offences under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the IPC.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process.
- Whether the allegations are vague and lack factual foundation to constitute the offences.
- Whether the civil dispute between co‑villagers renders the criminal proceeding malicious and mala fide.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quashment of FIR
- abuse of process
- forgery
- fraud
- civil dispute
- mala fide prosecution
- Indian Penal Code
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4849 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2012 Thana- BUXAR District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Parmanand Singh, Resident of Village-
Basudhar, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar.
2. Kamlesh Prasad Signh @ Kmleshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Parmanand
Singh, resident of Village- Basudhar, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar.
3. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh, Son of Late Parmanand Singh, resident of
Village- Basudhar, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
8 02-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the F.I.R.
bearing Buxar Town P.S. Case No.186 of 2012 lodged under
Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the present petitioners and other
accused persons named in the aforesaid F.I.R.
3. The factual matrix, as emerging from the materials
available on record, is that the present F.I.R. came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
2/11
instituted on the basis of a written report submitted by the
informant alleging that certain persons of Village Basudhar,
Police Station Itarhi, District Buxar, including the present
petitioners, had changed their names, procured land possession
certificates on the strength of forged and fabricated documents
and, in connivance with certain officials of Canara Bank, Buxar
Town Branch, obtained loans under the M.S.T.P. Scheme and
wrongfully availed the benefit of Government subsidy. It is
further alleged that by adopting such fraudulent means, the
accused persons had not only secured illegal pecuniary
advantage but had also frustrated the very object of the welfare
scheme floated by the Government. On the basis of the said
allegations, Buxar Town P.S. Case No.186 of 2012 was
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,
and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioners and other accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned F.I.R. is a glaring abuse of the process of law and has
been instituted with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners
on account of long-standing village rivalry and a pending civil
dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioners
had lawfully availed the loan facility in their respective names
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
3/11
and had repaid the entire loan amount as early as in the year
2008, whereafter the concerned Bank issued ‘No Dues
Certificates’ and closed the respective loan accounts. Learned
counsel further submits that during the course of investigation,
the Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Buxar Town Branch, by
communication dated 06.02.2014 addressed to the Investigating
Officer, categorically stated that no irregularity or wrongdoing
had been found in respect of the transactions relating to the
petitioners. It is submitted that the Bank, being the only
institution directly concerned with the loan transactions, has
neither alleged any fraud nor claimed to have suffered any
financial loss.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations
made in the F.I.R. are vague, omnibus and wholly unsupported
by any specific material constituting the ingredients of the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. He submits that the informant is neither an
aggrieved person nor has any nexus with the loan transactions in
question and, therefore, lacks any legal basis to set the criminal
law in motion on the allegations so made. It is further submitted
that the petitioners and the informant are co-villagers and close
agnates (Gotiyas), between whom a partition suit in respect of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
4/11
ancestral property has been pending since the year 2003, and the
present criminal prosecution is nothing but a counterblast
arising out of the said civil dispute. Learned counsel, thus,
submits that even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are
taken at their face value, no prima facie case is made out against
the petitioners and continuation of the criminal prosecution
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court,
warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court.
6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State
submits that the F.I.R. discloses the commission of cognizable
offences. He submits that appropriate order may be passed in the
interest of justice.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the materials
available on record. The principal question which falls for
consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the allegations made in the
F.I.R., even if accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission
of the offences alleged against the petitioners so as to justify
continuation of the criminal prosecution, or whether the case
warrants exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
5/11
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
8. Before adverting to the merits of the rival
contentions, it would be apposite to briefly notice the scope of
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. The power preserved under the said provision is of the
widest amplitude, however, its exercise is circumscribed by
well-settled judicial principles. Such jurisdiction is to be
invoked sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional
cases, either to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Court
is not expected to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of the
evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. At the same
time, where the allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose
the essential ingredients of the alleged offences or where the
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and
has been instituted for an ulterior purpose, the High Court
would be fully justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to
interdict such proceedings at the threshold, lest the criminal
process itself becomes an instrument of oppression rather than a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
6/11
means of securing justice.
9. In the present case, the gravamen of the allegation
is that the petitioners, in connivance with certain officials of
Canara Bank, procured loans under the M.S.T.P. Scheme by
adopting fraudulent means. However, from a plain reading of
the F.I.R., it is evident that the allegations are couched in
general terms and no specific overt act has been attributed to the
petitioners demonstrating as to how they forged any document,
impersonated any person or dishonestly induced the Bank to
part with its money. Significantly, the F.I.R. is conspicuously
silent with regard to the nature of the alleged forged documents,
the role individually played by the petitioners and the manner in
which the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted. Mere
use of the expressions “forgery” and “fraud” in the F.I.R., bereft
of foundational facts, cannot by itself constitute the commission
of the offences alleged.
10. Another circumstance which assumes significance
is that the loan transactions in question admittedly pertain to the
petitioners and the concerned Bank. The materials brought on
record, including the case diary, indicate that the petitioners had
repaid the loan amount and were issued ‘No Dues Certificates’
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
7/11
by the Bank much prior to the institution of the present case.
More importantly, the communication issued by the Senior
Manager of Canara Bank to the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation does not indicate any irregularity or
financial loss attributable to the petitioners. Thus, the institution
which was allegedly deceived has itself not supported the
allegation of fraud. In such circumstances, the very substratum
of the prosecution case becomes doubtful, particularly when the
F.I.R. does not disclose any material indicating wrongful loss to
the Bank or corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioners.
11. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that
the informant is neither the lending institution nor a person
directly connected with the loan transactions. The materials on
record further reveal that the parties are co-villagers and close
agnates, between whom a civil dispute relating to partition has
been pending for a considerable period. Although the existence
of a civil dispute by itself may not be a ground to quash criminal
proceedings, where the attendant circumstances disclose that the
criminal law has been set in motion by a person having no direct
nexus with the transaction and the allegations lack the necessary
factual foundation to constitute the alleged offences, the
possibility of the criminal process being employed as a means of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
8/11
exerting pressure cannot be lightly ignored. In the considered
opinion of this Court, continuation of the present prosecution, in
the facts of the case, would not advance the cause of justice but
would amount to permitting abuse of the process of the Court.
12. The facts of the present case also deserve to be
examined in the light of the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, wherein the contours of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and the extraordinary power to quash criminal
proceedings were authoritatively delineated. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases
wherein interference at the threshold would be justified to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends
of justice. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts of
the present case squarely warrant examination on the touchstone
of the aforesaid principles.
13. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the
relevant paragraph as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal (supra):
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
9/11
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
10/11
to private and personal grudge.”
14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this
Court is satisfied that permitting the criminal prosecution to
continue would serve no useful purpose and would merely
subject the petitioners to unnecessary criminal proceedings
despite the absence of foundational material constituting the
alleged offences. The criminal law cannot be permitted to be
employed as an instrument of harassment or to settle personal
scores arising out of collateral disputes. The facts of the present
case unmistakably warrant the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law
and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be
quashed.
15. Consequently, the F.I.R. giving rise to Buxar
Town P.S. Case No.186 of 2012, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
16. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4849 of 2017(8) dt.02-07-2026
11/11
concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.