Patna High Court
Saurav RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
An FIR against a judicial officer may be registered only after obtaining permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, rendering the order accepting the final form without such permission invalid.
Summary
The petitioner, a senior deputy collector, filed an FIR alleging assault by his wife, a judicial officer, but was told that registration required the Chief Justice's permission. After a prolonged struggle involving RTI applications and letters, the FIR was eventually lodged and the police submitted a final form stating the case was an error of law. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted this final form, prompting the petitioner to seek quashing of that order via the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The court examined precedents on the protection of judicial officers and held that FIRs against them require prior permission from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no ground to interfere with the magistrate's order.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR can be lodged against a judicial officer without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
- Whether the order accepting the police's final form is vitiated for lack of such permission.
- Whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to quash the magistrate's order.
- Whether the police's finding that the case was an error of law is legally tenable.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to a fair investigation overrides the statutory protection afforded to judicial officers.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 154, 203
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 204, 206, 323, 341, 353, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- judicial officer protection
- FIR registration
- Chief Justice permission
- inherent jurisdiction
- domestic violence
- fair investigation
- criminal procedure
- false allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70170 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2024 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Saurav Raj, S/O Dilip Kumar Sinha, Resident of 405 B Hope Shivalik
Apartment, West Boring Canal Road, Anand Puri, Patna- 800001 and
presently residing at House No. 01, Magistrate Colony, Damu Chowk, in front
of Arunodya Homeopathy, Muzaffarpur- 842001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonakshi Verma, D/O Sunil Verma, R/O B-1/22, Sector- A, Kapurthala
Aliganj, P.S- Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-2206024 Presently posted as
Registrar Bihar Land Tribunal, 11 off Polo Road, Patna, Bihar- 800014
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhukar Mohan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-02-2026
Heard Mr. Madhukar Mohan, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Raju Giri, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel, for the opposite party no.2 and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
2/15
Court for quashing the order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, East,
Muzaffarpur in Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.122 of 2024
by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
East, Muzaffarpur has accepted the final form submitted by the
Investigating Officer.
3. The facts giving rise to the present application is to
the effect that the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 dated 10.04.2024
alleging therein that on 26.03.2023 at around 10:15 AM while
he was on the duty of maintaining law and order on account of
the visit of the Hon’ble Governor of Bihar at District Guest
House, Muzaffarpur, his wife/ opposite party no.2 all of a
sudden came to the guest house and started shouting at him
using vulgar language. It is alleged that she slapped him a
couple of times and also hit him on his head and on his back.
The opposite party no.2 is said to have caught him by his collar
and started dragging him, resulting in his shirt being torn. It is
alleged that she demanded that she should be taken in his
official car to do some work and she started accusing him of
telling lies and on the helplessness being shown by the
petitioner, she started misbehaving with him and even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
3/15
obstructed him from performing his official government duty. It
is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 snatched away the
purse and the key and she stayed back at the guest house. It is
alleged that the petitioner, on account of such behaviour of his
wife/ opposite party no.2 felt uncomfortable and thereafter,
since 28.03.2023 he has stopped living with his wife.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had made
the complaint earlier on 16.05.2023 and then on 27.05.2023, he
had produced the statements of five eyewitnesses on oath before
the Kazi Mohammadpur police station. It is alleged that despite
his repeated requests, the FIR was not registered. Then the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, consulted the
Government Advocate and thereafter he was informed that to
register an FIR against a serving Judicial Officer in Bihar,
permission of the Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Patna is
required in light of the judgment settled by the Patna High Court
in Cr.W.J.C. 1391 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a
letter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Patna High Court,
seeking permission to register an FIR against his wife/ opposite
party no.2 on 22.09.2023 and waited for the reply, but he was
not given any reply. The petitioner even made an RTI
application, which was subsequently answered on 20.03.2024. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
4/15
is stated that on 23.03.2024, the petitioner sought permission of
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, to register an
FIR and it is stated that on their orders, he was making the
written report for registration of FIR before the Station House
Officer, Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station.
5. It is on such a written report that Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 came to be registered
on 10.04.2024. The police, after investigation, submitted final
form with an opinion that the said case was an error of law.
6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such submission
of the final form, has approached this Court against the order
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
East, Muzaffarpur, whereby, vide order dated 13.05.2024 the
learned Trial Court has accepted the final form submitted by the
I.O. of Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no.2 was
solemnized on 15.02.2021 and right since the marriage, it has
been alleged by the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 was
apathetic towards the petitioner and his family members and,
therefore, the petitioner was compelled to institute a divorce
petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
5/15
on 21.05.2022.
8. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that after the institution of the divorce case, the
harassment of the opposite party no.2 and her family members
intensified and by misusing the legal provision, the father of
opposite party no.2 instituted one case being Aliganj P.S. Case
No.180 of 2022 on 15.06.2022 in Lucknow district of Uttar
Pradesh for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 204 and 206
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
9. It has next been submitted that the opposite party
no.2 in connivance with her domestic helper, lodged another
false case of rape against the petitioner in Madion P.S. of
Lucknow district, being Madion P.S. Case No. 345 of 2022 on
16.06.2022. It has been submitted that final form in the said case
was submitted finding the allegations levelled against the
petitioner to be baseless. It has also been submitted that the
application for quashing the case lodged against him is also
pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Lucknow.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite party further filed a domestic violence case bearing
Domestic Violence (D.V.) Case No. 3288 of 2022 and in the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
6/15
case, an ex-parte judgment was passed and Rs.10,000/- monthly
maintenance was directed to be paid by the petitioner. It has
been submitted that the said order is also under challenge.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the opposite party no.2 did not stop from filing false cases
but has gone on to send highly defamatory letters to the various
authorities within the State of Bihar alleging that the petitioner
has illicit relationship with his elder brother’s wife. The
petitioner was even show caused by the District Magistrate of
Muzaffarpur on account of such letters, which was highly
detrimental to the reputation of the petitioner’s family. The
petitioner, on account of such defamatory letter, has also filed a
complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur,
being Complaint Case No.1251 of 2024 and the same was
dismissed on many grounds, especially the ground of territorial
jurisdiction.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that for an act of violence committed by the opposite party no.2
and her family members, he had also instituted a complaint case
bearing Complaint Case No.739 of 2022 on 12.07.2022 which
too was heard and dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by
order dated 13.03.2024 and the petitioner has preferred a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
7/15
revision against the said order.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that during his posting as Senior Deputy Collector at
Muzaffarpur district, where the opposite party no.2 was also
posted as Judicial Officer, the incident on 26.03.2023 occurred
where the wife had abused and beaten the petitioner at the Guest
House of Muzaffarpur while he was discharging his duty and
hence he has submitted a letter to the local police station against
the opposite party no.2, however, no case was instituted and he
was informed that he needs to take consent from the Hon’ble
High Court in order to register the FIR against a Judicial
Officer.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
had no option but to write a request letter to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice on 12.09.2023, wherein the entire incident was narrated
and a consent was sought for lodging of a FIR. It has been
submitted that he did not get any information, and therefore he
sought information through RTI application and he also filed a
first appeal as he did not get the required information within
time. On 20.03.2024, the petitioner finally received information
for his RTI application, which said that after going through the
explanation submitted by the Judicial Officer and the report by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
8/15
the District Judge, Muzaffarpur, no further action is required and
the same was consigned.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, not being able to comprehend the information
provided by the Hon’ble High Court, sought clarification with
regard to registration of an FIR against a judicial officer from
the District Prosecution Officer, Muzaffarpur. He got a reply
from him stating therein that “for the acts done by a Judicial
Officer in their own personal capacity, permission of the Chief
Justice of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, is not required to
lodge FIR. It is only after receiving such an opinion from the
District Prosecution Officer, Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. case No.
122 of 2024 was finally lodged against the opposite party no.2
for the offense under Section 341, 323, 353, 204 of the Indian
Penal Code on 10.04.2024. The petitioner, having apprehension
that the investigation of the case may be affected, also filed a
protest application in the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during his work hours he received a call that he is being called
upon by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, East
Muzaffarpur, to argue on his protest petition and he found that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
9/15
the said court was predetermined to decide the case without
even serving proper notice to the petitioner. It is a specific case
of the petitioner that neither his learned counsel nor the
petitioner was heard before passing of the impugned order. It
has been submitted that even the learned counsel for the
petitioner had submitted a complaint before the District Bar
Council, Muzaffarpur, Bihar State Bar Council, as well as the
Bar Council of India, about the conduct of the said learned
Judicial Officer. A complaint was also sent to the learned
Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, with regard to the
same.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
a very mechanical order with elaboration as to what was the
settled proposition of law accepted the final form submitted by
the I.O. vide order dated 13.05.2024. It has further been
submitted that merely relying on the submission made by the
learned S.D.P.O., no sanction was obtained prior to lodging of
the FIR and therefore, the institution of the FIR was a legal error
and therefore, the final form was accepted.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
K.Veeraswami vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
10/15
622, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no
criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the
Cr.P.C. against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High
Court or judges of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of
India is consulted in the matter. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the case in hand is
completely different and the opposite party does not come
within the parameter as defined under the said judgment.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
relies upon a Judgment rendered in U.P. Judicial Officer’s
Association vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2002) 8 JT
133 wherein the constitution of Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has recorded as under:
"The Counsel also urged that some
additional guidelines be issued to the effect that before
lodging an FIR against any Judicial Officer, the
Permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court
should be obtained irrespective of the fact that the
alleged offence are in discharge of his official duty or
purported discharge of his official duty. We do not
think it necessary to issue any such direction, as
present in the case in hand. The interim orders and
directions issued in this case as well as the guidelines
indicated by the this Court in the Case of Delhi
Judicial Service Association are sufficient to protect
the independence of the Judicial Officers.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
11/15
20. The learned counsel, while referring to the
judgment passed in Ramila Thapar vs. Union of India reported
in (2018) 10 SCC 723, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the victim has also a right to fair investigation and fair trial
and thus taking the protection from the aforesaid observation
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he may also be assured that a fair
investigation in the case should be done and the same should not
be thwarted at the threshold. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
thus, submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 has
been passed completely ignoring the settled law and is thus
untenable and is fit to be set-aside.
21. Mr. Raju Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has stated that he would not
be adverting to the minute details of the actions committed by
the petitioner against the opposite party no.2, however, he has
pointed out that the petitioner had been assaulting his
wife/opposite party no.2 as she had been opposing the illicit
physical relationship with his Bhabhi (sister-in-law) and
therefore the opposite party no.2 had no option but to file
domestic violence case. It has further been submitted that in a
very peculiar manner, while the opposite party no.2 was staying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
12/15
along with the petitioner, he had surreptitiously filed a
matrimonial case seeking divorce before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna, being Matrimonial Case (Divorce)
No. 653 of 2022 on 21.05.2022.
22. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that during
the course of mediation as per the directions of the Hon'ble High
Court, Lucknow Bench, mediation had taken place between the
petitioner and opposite party no.2 and they had also started
living together in order to dissolve the dispute, however, the
petitioner just after few days of residing together started
torturing, abusing and threatening the opposite party no.2 and
the opposite party no.2 found two spy audio recorder installed
by the petitioner in her bedroom without her knowledge and
when she found that her personal conversation was being
recorded in the same, she confronted the petitioner on
28.03.2023, however, it was the petitioner who has abused her
and threatened her to kill and then she took all her belongings
and left, for which the opposite party no.2 had also filed a
complaint. It has also been informed that an application on
07.04.2023 was also made before the Organizing Secretary
Mediation and Conciliation Center, High Court, Lucknow and
had brought to the notice of the concerned Officer with regard to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
13/15
the incident occurred on 28.03.2023 and thereafter the
mediation failed.
23. Learned Senior counsel has stated that the
opposite party no.2 filed a case at Muzaffarpur Being Town P.S.
Case No. 295 of 2025 on 15.04.2023 for the offences under
Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
with the allegations that while she was living together with the
petitioner in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court, Lucknow Bench, she was assaulted by the petitioner
when she confronted him. It has further been submitted that in
retaliation to the raising of voice against the petitioner,
complaint cases were filed against the opposite party no.2 which
were found to be false and were even dismissed.
24. Learned Senior counsel for the opposite party
no.2, thus, submits that without seeking the permission of the
Hon'ble Chief Justice, Patna High Court, the FIR should not
have been lodged at all and therefore the submission of final
form and acceptance of the same is not illegal and the police had
rightly submitted the final form stating it to be an error of law
and by a very detailed order the learned Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Muzaffarpur, has accepted the final
form, taking into account the entire facts. It has next been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
14/15
submitted that the protest petition of the petitioner was referred
to and considered and then it came to a conclusion that the
report submitted by the police finding it to be an error of law
was correct and there was no material available on record to
proceed further in this case.
25. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
further refers to the judgment passed in the case of U.P. Judicial
Officer’s Association vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC
687 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed that when any
criminal conduct is attributed to a Judicial Officer in discharge
of his duties or in purported exercise or discharge of his duties,
no crime for investigation should be registered pursuant to FIR
without the permission of the Chief Justice of High Court
concerned.
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having also perused the pleading made by the respective
parties, this Court finds that the law is well settled in such cases
where a criminal case is to be instituted against a Judicial
Officer, permission with regard to the same is required to be
sought from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the concerned High
Court and then only the FIR should be instituted.
27. I find that the arguments raised by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70170 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026
15/15
counsel for the petitioner that no permission is required to
institute an FIR, if a cognizable offence has been committed is
also not tenable in the present facts and circumstances of the
case and also taking into consideration the judgment rendered in
U.P. Judicial Officers’ Association (Supra) wherein in
additional guidelines as contained in Delhi Judicial Service
Association v. State of Gujarat reported in 1991 (4) SCC 406
this Court finds that “No crime for investigation should be
registered pursuant to any FIR without the permission of the
Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.”
28. In view of the above, the application does not
warrant any interference with the impugned order.
29. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 06.02.2026
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date 27.02.2026
Checking your session…