Patna High Court

Bisheshwar RayversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

No prima facie case exists against the petitioner and the cognizance and revisional orders are quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, Bisheshwar Ray, was an executive member of Baruara PACS but resigned in September 2010, well before alleged fraudulent transactions in 2012‑13 involving cheques for paddy and wheat purchases. He was charged under IPC Sections 409, 420 and 34 for alleged misappropriation of Rs.79,977.90, and the trial court took cognizance on 15‑Jan‑2016, which was affirmed by the revisional court. The petitioner contended that he had no role in the transactions, that the FIR mistakenly named him, and that the dues were later paid with a No‑Dues Certificate. The High Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, examined whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and found that the resignation, the corrective letter, and lack of incriminating material negated any case against him. Consequently, the court quashed both the trial and revisional orders, holding that proceeding would be an abuse of process.

Issues considered

The trial court's cognizance order against the petitioner is sustainable given his resignation prior to the alleged offences.
Whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case under IPC Sections 409, 420 and 34.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 409, 420

Subjects

criminal procedure
inherent jurisdiction
Section 482 CrPC
quash of cognizance
IPC 409
IPC 420
abuse of process
cooperative bank fraud
resignation

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55794 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-530 Year-2013 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Bisheshwar Ray son of Late Ram Yadav resident of Village- Pingi, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Niranjan Kumar, Branch Manager, Bihar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,
Darbhanga Branch.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Sweta Suman, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

3 21-04-2026 1. The present application has been filed invoking the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated

15.01.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), Darbhanga in

connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 530 of 2013,

whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable

under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against

the accused persons, including the petitioner, as well as for

setting aside the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/9

‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No. 99 of 2016

affirming the cognizance order.

2. The prosecution case, as emanates from the F.I.R is

that as per the order of cooperative department of Bihar

Government, the paddy and wheat of farmers were to be

purchased through PACS and to give the same to Bihar State

Food Corporation, of Darbhanga unit for which a tripartite

agreement was made and on that basis, a certain cash credit

limit was given to different PACS. On the basis of that facility,

the cheques issued by PACS for farmers were honoured. For

financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13, the cheques issued by some

PACS to farmers for purchase of paddy or wheat and payment

has made for such cheques but neither paddy or wheat has not

been deposited to BSFC, Darbhanga unit nor any refund of

amounts were received by the bank. The bank account of PACS

is in Bihar State Cooperative Bank, Darbhanga branch which is

run by joint signature of President and Manager/Executive

Members. It is stated therein that Baruara PACS – chairman was

Mohibur Rahman and Executive Members was Bisheshwar

Ray(Petitioner). As per complaint, total balance amount was Rs.

79,977.90 with interest thereupon has not been deposited by

Baruara PACS Ltd. for the transaction taken place during the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/9

period of 07.02.2012 to 13.09.2012. Similar allegation is made

against two other PACS members. On such allegation via letter

no.277 dated 01.11.2023, Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 530 of

2013 was instituted against the accused persons, including the

petitioner herein, for the offences punishable under Sections

409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 12.112013.

3. Upon completion of investigation, the police

submitted charge-sheet bearing no.570 of 2015 dated

21.12.2015 against the accused persons, including the petitioner,

for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said charge-sheet,

F.I.R and case diary, the learned Trial Court found a prima facie

case against accused person including petitioner herein and

accordingly took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against

the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2016. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 99 of

2016 before the Revisional Court. The learned Revisional court

dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order taking

cognizance vide order dated 28.06.2016. Aggrieved thereby,

petitioner preferred this present application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the materials on records.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
4/9

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order taking cognizance against the petitioner as well as the

order passed in revision affirming the same are wholly

unsustainable in the eyes of law, having been passed without

proper appreciation of the materials available on record.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already

resigned from the post of Secretary as well as from the

Executive Committee of Baruara PACS on 02.09.2010, much

prior to the alleged transactions which are stated to have taken

place from 06.08.12 to 13.09.2012 in Baruara PACS Ltd., and

therefore, he had no concern whatsoever with the affairs or

financial transactions of the said PACS at the relevant point of

time. Learned counsel further submits that after resignation, the

bank account of the PACS was being operated by the Chairman,

namely Mohibur Rahman, along with another authorized

signatory, Md. Shamsher, and all the alleged cheques in question

were issued under their joint signatures, without any

involvement of the petitioner, yet the learned Trial Court

proceeded to take cognizance in a mechanical manner and the

learned Revisional Court also failed to appreciate these vital

aspects while affirming the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
5/9

that even the O.P No.2 himself, vide letter dated 30.06.2014, has

categorically stated that the name of the petitioner was

inadvertently mentioned in the complaint and requested for

substitution with the name of the actual signatory and further

petitioner has given a detailed representation before senior S.P.,

Darbhanga on 22.01.2015 for requesting to enquired the matter

thoroughly and exonerating him from the present police case

and a copy of his representation was served to the I.G.,

Darbhanga Range for taking necessary action. However, the said

material document has neither been considered during

investigation nor by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional

Court. Learned counsel submits that the entire alleged amount

has already been deposited by the co-accused and a “No Dues

Certificate” has been issued by the Bank, and further, no

incriminating material has been recovered from the possession

of the petitioner nor is there any material to establish

entrustment or dishonest intention on his part so as to attract the

provisions of Sections 409 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is

further submitted that the investigation has been conducted in a

perfunctory and mechanical manner without collecting vital

evidence, including verification of actual signatories of the

cheques, and as such, even if the entire prosecution case is taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
6/9

at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner,

and continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court, warranting interference to secure the

ends of justice.

7. Learned APP for the state fairly submits that

informant(O.P. No. 2) vide letter 568 dated 30.06.2014

(Annexure-5) informed the SHO, P.S. Laheriasarai that the

name of petitioner was inadvertently due to typing mistake

included in the FIR in place of Md. Shamsher. He further

conceded that the dues amount of bank has already been paid

by the concerned PACS for which no dues certificate dated

18.09.2014 has been issued by the informant bank. Accordingly,

he submits that appropriate order may be passed in the interest

of justice.

8. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would

be appropriate to briefly dicuss the settled legal position

governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well established that the

inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. is wide in its scope; however, such power is to be

exercised with great caution, restraint and only in exceptional

circumstances, either to prevent abuse of the process of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
7/9

court or to secure the ends of justice.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, it appears that the allegation

against the petitioner in the present case is that he was executive

member of Baruara PACS, whose bank account was with

informant bank where credit facility was provided and the bank

account was run by joint signature of President and

Manager/Executive Member and Rs.79,977.90 along with

interest was not deposited by Baruara PACS with bank. The

transaction relates from 06.08.2012 to 13.09.2012. Subsequently

, the dues amount was also deposited by Co-accused and no

dues certificate was issued by the informant bank.

10. In the present case, the petitioner contended that

he had already resigned from the post of Secretary as well as

from the Executive Committee of Baruara PACS on 02.09.2010,

much prior to the alleged transactions taken place from

06.08.2012 to 13.09.2012, and as such, he had no concern

whatsoever with the affairs or financial transactions of the said

PACS at the relevant point of time. In order to substantiate the

said claim, the petitioner has produced a true copy of his

resignation and has also brought on record a letter dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
8/9

30.06.2014 issued by O.P. No. 2 to the officer-in-charge of

Laheriasarai police station, wherein it has been categorically

stated that the name of the petitioner was inadvertently

mentioned in the complaint and a request has been made for

substitution of the same with the name of the actual signatory. In

the light of these undisputed documents, it appears that the

petitioner was not holding the aforesaid post at the time of the

alleged irregularities.

11. It is pertinent to note that while considering a

prayer for quashing of a criminal proceeding at the threshold,

the Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in

the complaint, taken at their face value and in conjunction with

the materials brought on record, disclose the commission of any

offence so as to constitute a prima facie case against the accused

for proceeding further. This principle has been consistently

reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of Judgments

including 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.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it prima facie

appears that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55794 of 2016(3) dt.21-04-2026
9/9

against the petitioner are not made out from the materials

available on record, and continuation of the criminal proceeding

against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of

the Court.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

The order of Revisional Court dated 28.06.2016 and order of

Trial Court dated 15.01.2016 is hereby quashed and the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case

No.-530 of 2013 against the present petitioner stands set aside.

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

court concerned forthwith for information and necessary

compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…