Patna High Court
PAWAN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the FIR, emphasizing that Section 482 should be used sparingly and the investigation must be allowed to proceed.
Summary
The petitioner, an engineer employed at Tata Steel, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash FIR No. 168 of 2021, which alleged offences under Sections 506, 376, 312 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He claimed the FIR was malicious, filed after a six‑year delay, and was motivated by a family dispute over a Rs. 2,00,000 loan. The State and the second opposite party opposed, contending that the FIR contains specific allegations supported by material and that the petition is a tactic after the rejection of anticipatory bail. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, held that the inherent power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to terminate a legitimate investigation. Consequently, the Court refused to quash the FIR, directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation expeditiously while allowing the petitioner to cooperate and present his defence. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR where investigation is ongoing.
- Whether the alleged delay of six years in lodging the FIR and the claim of malicious intent justify quashing.
- Whether the material gathered by the police suffices to continue the prosecution.
- Whether the power under Section 482 can be used to short‑circuit a prosecution after anticipatory bail is denied.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 312, 376, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash petition
- FIR
- POCSO Act
- malicious prosecution
- investigation
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70643 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Pawan Kumar Son Of Gonaur Rai @ Gonor Roy R/V- Mithan Saray, P.O-
Mustafapur, P.S- Ahiyapur, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari D/o Brajkishore Rai R/o Jangli Prasad Lane, P.S- Chowk,
Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha
For O.P. No. 2 Mr. Ratnakar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of Special (POCSO) Case No. 168 of 2021, arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No. 139 of 2021 dated 27.11.2021 registered
for the offences under Sections 506, 376 and 312 of the Indian
Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the present FIR has been lodged with complete malicious
intent imputing absolutely false allegations against the petitioner
who happens to be an engineer working in the Tata Steel Ltd.,
Jamshedpur and it is also a fact that the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70643 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/5
informant are both related to each other, inasmuch as the
informant is the own sister of the aunt of the petitioner and it is
only for the purposes of grabbing Rs. 2,00,000/- which had been
given as a friendly loan that the present case has been filed at
the instance of the family members of the informant including
the husband and brother of the informant. Learned counsel has
also emphasized on the fact that the present case has been
lodged after a delay of six years for which no plausible reason
has been tendered by the prosecution. It has also been submitted
by him that the present position is that both the informant and
the petitioner are now married and leading their separate life and
opposite party no. 2 even attended the marriage of the petitioner
indicating thereby that she may not be having any serious
allegations against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that
even during the course of investigation, no tangible material has
surfaced against the petitioner and the independent witnesses
who have been examined have also not supported the case of the
prosecution.
4. Per contra, the present application is opposed by
the learned APP for the State and also the learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 submits that the FIR discloses specific allegation against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70643 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/5
the petitioner and the same also finds support from some
materials during the course of investigation. It has also been
submitted that in the present case only after the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court and
also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present recourse to
filing of an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the FIR has been taken for which the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court may not be exercised in favour of the
petitioner.
5. Taking the rival contention into consideration and
also considering the fact that the present application relates to
quashing of FIR where the allegations have been made against
the petitioner, it would not be proper for this Court to scuttle the
investigation which is going on in the matter and the law has
been settled in this regard by various judicial pronouncements.
This Court would gainfully like to refer to the case of M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
should be used sparingly. Courts cannot embark upon an inquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the
FIR/Complaint. Thus, this Court is taking into consideration the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70643 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/5
fact that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to
be used as an instrument to short-circuit a prosecution and bring
about its sudden death, especially in background of the fact that
the present application has been used as a remedial measure in
wake of anticipatory bail of the petitioner being rejected up to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined
to quash the FIR at this stage as the investigation is still
proceeding. However, the Investigating Officer of this case is
directed to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion
expeditiously and it is expected that he would take into
consideration whether tangible materials feature during the
course of investigation against the present petitioner and the
substantial and inordinate delay caused in the lodging of the
First Information Report itself may also be one of the factors to
be considered before bringing the investigation to a close.
7. However, the petitioner would always have the
liberty to cooperate in the investigation and submit before the
Investigating Officer all his points of defence which would be
considered in accordance with law and in the correct
perspective.
8. With the above-mentioned observations and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70643 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
5/5
directions, the present application stands disposed of.
9. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 filed on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 is also disposed of as the main application itself has
been decided on merits.
10. It is made clear that once the petitioner submits all
his defence, the Investigating Officer who would be considering
such defence may also take into consideration the fact that the
petitioner is a professional who is working at Tata Steel,
Jamshedpur and in such view of the matter, the Investigating
Officer, may even consider to keep his arrest in abeyance till he
reaches a conclusion with regard to his guilt.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.