Patna High Court

Sameer KumarversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 29 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The court held that the materials on record do not disclose any offence under Sections 353, 420, 406, 409 IPC read with Section 34 and therefore quashed the criminal proceeding.

Summary

The petitioner, Sameer Kumar, a godown manager, was charged under Sections 353, 420, 406 and 409 IPC read with Section 34 for allegedly shifting 300 bags of Custom Milled Rice to bags marked by other governments and for being absent during an inspection. He filed a discharge application which was rejected by the trial court, leading him to seek quashal of the criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court examined whether the FIR, charge‑sheet and investigation records, if taken at face value, disclosed any of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It found that the rice stock was intact, the bag replacement was done to preserve the grain and there was no evidence of shortage, dishonest intention, misappropriation or assault. Consequently, the court held that the allegations amounted only to a departmental lapse and not a criminal offence, and that proceeding would be an abuse of process. The order of the trial court was set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Issues considered

The FIR and investigation materials disclose a prima facie case under Sections 353, 420, 406 and 409 IPC read with Section 34.
Whether the petitioner’s absence during inspection and replacement of damaged bags constitute offences under the cited IPC sections.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 353, 406, 409, 420

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceeding
food grain storage
departmental lapse
cheating under IPC 420
criminal breach of trust
assault under IPC 353
public servant obstruction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9713 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1170 Year-2016 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sameer Kumar, S/o Late Shoukin Singh, The Assistant Godown Manager,
CMR cum Child Protection Officer, Sasaram, Incharge of CMR Godown,
situated at Sasaram Takiya Bazar Samiti Premises, P.S.- Sasaram Model
District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Department.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Kanhaiya Rao, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
For the BFSC : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

9 29-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated

09.01.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-V cum Sub-Judge-

XIII, Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’)

in connection with Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No.1170 of 2016,

wherein the learned Trial Court rejected the discharge petition

filed by the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an F.I.R.

being Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No.1170 of 2016 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
2/13

21.10.2016 was instituted on the written report of the District

Manager, State Food Corporation, Sasaram, pursuant to

directions received from the Head Office, Patna. The allegation

against the petitioner, who was posted as Godown Manager and

was entrusted with the custody of Custom Milled Rice (CMR)

stored in the concerned godown, is that during an inspection

conducted by a special team, he was found absent despite being

directed to remain present with all relevant records. During such

inspection, it was allegedly noticed that about 300 bags of CMR

had been shifted from the bags supplied by the State Food

Corporation to bags bearing the markings of the Government of

India, Government of Haryana and Government of Punjab,

which was stated to be in violation of the departmental

guidelines and circulars governing storage of food grains. It was

further alleged that the absence of the petitioner caused

obstruction in the discharge of official duties by the inspecting

team. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case

was registered under Sections 353, 420, 406, 409 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted and the learned C.J.M., Rohtas took cognizance of the

offence under Sections 353, 420, 406, 409 read with Section 34
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
3/13

of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application for discharge contending, inter alia, that the CMR

stock was found intact during investigation, no shortage or

misappropriation of rice was detected and, at best, the

allegations disclosed a departmental lapse. The aforesaid

discharge application having been rejected by the learned Trial

Court vide the impugned order dated 09.01.2018, the present

Crimnal Miscellaneous Application has been preferred before

this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

entire prosecution case, even if accepted in its entirety, does not

disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 353,

420, 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that

during investigation the police found the entire stock of Custom

Milled Rice (CMR) intact in the godown and no shortage,

defalcation, misappropriation or wrongful loss to the State Food

Corporation was detected. Referring to the statements of the

Account Officer and Assistant Account Officer recorded during

investigation, learned counsel submits that the bags supplied by

the Corporation was damaged and, there being no provision for

replacement thereof, the petitioner had shifted the rice into bags

purchased from the market only with a view to preserving the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
4/13

stock entrusted to him in good faith. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the mere replacement of bags,

without any allegation of loss or misappropriation of the stored

rice, may at best amount to violation of departmental guidelines

and cannot constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the allegation under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is

wholly misconceived inasmuch as there is no accusation of

assault, use of criminal force or any overt act on the part of the

petitioner to deter a public servant from discharging his official

duties. It is submitted that mere absence of the petitioner at the

time of inspection cannot attract the provisions of Section 353

of the India Penal Code. It is also submitted that the materials

collected during investigation do not disclose any dishonest

intention or criminal breach of trust or wrongful gain so as to

justify framing of charges under Sections 406, 409 or 420 of the

Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel thus submits that

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court and that the learned Trial Court

failed to appreciate the absence of any prima facie material

while rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner.

He lastly prays that the impugned order passed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
5/13

Trial Court warrants interference by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, while opposing

the application, submits that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature and relate to defalcation and

mismanagement of public food grains entrusted to the custody

of the petitioner. It is submitted that despite prior directions, the

petitioner neither produced the relevant stock registers nor

cooperated with the inspection team, and during physical

verification it was found that a substantial quantity of CMR had

been stored in bags other than those supplied by the

Corporation. Reliance has also been placed upon the directions

issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 1779 of

2016 concerning expeditious trial of cases relating to defalcation

of public food grains, and it is submitted that the learned Trial

Court has rightly rejected the discharge application filed by the

petitioner. Moreover, learned APP for the State adopts the

submissions advanced on behalf of O.P. No.2 and submits that

the appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in the

interest of justice.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 and learned

APP for the State and have carefully perused the materials
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
6/13

available on record. It is well settled that while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court does not

undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected

during investigation nor does it adjudicate upon the truthfulness

of the allegations. At the stage of framing of charge or

considering a prayer for discharge, the Court is only required to

examine whether the materials collected during investigation, if

taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences

alleged. Interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is

warranted only where the allegations made in the F.I.R., the

charge-sheet and the materials on record, even if accepted in

their entirety, do not constitute any offence or where

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an

abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, while considering

the challenge to the order refusing discharge, this Court is

required to examine whether a prima facie case under Sections

353, 420, 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code is made out from the materials collected during

investigation.

9. Upon perusal of the F.I.R., the case diary and the

materials collected during investigation, this Court finds that the

gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is not that any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
7/13

quantity of CMR rice was found missing from the godown, but

that a number of bags containing the stored rice were found to

have been shifted from the gunny bags supplied by the

Corporation to bags bearing the markings of other governmental

agencies. Significantly, the investigating agency, upon physical

verification of the godown, found the CMR stock intact and

there is no allegation in the charge-sheet of any shortage,

disappearance or misappropriation of the rice entrusted to the

petitioner.

10. It further transpires from the statements recorded

during investigation, as noticed in the case diary, that the gunny

bags initially supplied by the Corporation often become

damaged due to prolonged storage and are also susceptible to

damage by rodents. It has been stated that there exists no

provision for supply of replacement bags by the Corporation

and, in such circumstances, the responsibility of preserving the

food grains and arranging substitute bags falls upon the Godown

Manager. The materials collected during investigation indicate

that the petitioner had shifted the rice from the damaged bags to

other available bags procured from the market with the object of

safeguarding the stock stored in the godown. Thus, even from

the prosecution materials, it prima facie appears that the rice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
8/13

entrusted to the petitioner remained available in the godown and

what is attributed to him is the replacement of damaged gunny

bags without obtaining prior permission from the authorities

concerned. Whether such conduct amounts to violation of

departmental instructions or administrative guidelines is a

matter distinct from the question as to whether the essential

ingredients of the penal offences alleged are disclosed from the

materials on record.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club

(1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in

(2024) 10 SCC 690 has elaborately explained sine qua non

requirement for the offence of cheating, which is as under:

“36.………….Similarly, in respect of an
offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential
ingredients are: - 1) deception of any person,
either by making a false or misleading
representation or by other action or by
omission; 2) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing any person to deliver any property,
or 3) the consent that any persons shall
retain any property and finally intentionally
inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit
(see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State
of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009)
Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections,
mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the
dishonest intention must be present, and in
the case of cheating it must be there from the
very beginning or inception.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
9/13

39. Every act of breach of trust may not
result in a penal offence of criminal breach
of trust unless there is evidence of
manipulating act of fraudulent
misappropriation. An act of breach of trust
involves a civil wrong in respect of which the
person may seek his remedy for damages in
civil courts but, any breach of trust with a
mens rea, gives rise to a criminal
prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari
Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha
& Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as
under:
“4.We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on
behalf of the appellant and are of the
opinion that no case has been made out
against the respondents under Section 420
Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the
present appeal, we would assume that the
various allegations of fact which have been
made in the complaint by the appellant are
correct. Even after making that allowance,
we find that the complaint does not disclose
the commission of any offence on the part of
the respondents under Section 420 Penal
Code, 1860. There is nothing in the
complaint to show that the respondents had
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time
the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/- There
is also nothing to indicate that the
respondents induced the appellant to pay
them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is
further not the case of the appellant that a
representation was made, the respondents
knew the same to be false. The fact that the
respondents subsequently did not abide by
their commitment that they would show the
appellant to be the proprietor of Drang
Transport Corporation and would also
render accounts to him in the month of
December might create civil liability on the
respondents for the offence of cheating.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
10/13

Khan v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC

Online SC 2508 has held as under:

“17. In Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (“Inder
Mohan Goswami”), while dealing with
Section 420 IPC, this Court observed thus:
“42. On a reading of the aforesaid
section, it is manifest that in the definition
there are two separate classes of acts which
the person deceived may be induced to do. In
the first class of acts he may be induced
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver
property to any person. The second class of
acts is the doing or omitting to do anything
which the person deceived would not do or
omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the
first class of cases, the inducement must be
fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class
of acts, the inducing must be intentional but
need not be fraudulent or dishonest.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist
of the offence. To hold a person guilty of
cheating it is necessary to show that he had
a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making the promise. From his mere
failure to subsequently keep a promise, one
cannot presume that he all along had a
culpable intention to break the promise from
the beginning.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. It is settled law that for establishing the
offence of cheating, the
complainant/respondent No.2 was required
to show that the appellant had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the time of making
a promise or representation of not fulfilling
the agreement for sale of the said property.
Such a culpable intention right at the
beginning when the promise was made
cannot be presumed but has to be made out
with cogent facts.…….”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
11/13

13. So far as the allegation under Section 353 of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court finds that neither the

F.I.R. nor the materials collected during investigation disclose

any allegation of assault or use of criminal force by the

petitioner against any public servant while discharging his

official duty. The gravamen of the accusation is that the

petitioner was not present at the godown at the time of

inspection and did not produce the relevant records as directed.

Mere absence from the place of inspection or failure to produce

documents, without anything further, may constitute negligence

or disobedience of departmental instructions, but the same, by

itself, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 353 of

the Indian Penal Code, which contemplates assault or use of

criminal force with the intention of deterring a public servant

from discharge of his duties.

14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is

of the considered view that the allegations made in the F.I.R.

and the materials collected during investigation, even if

accepted at their face value, primarily disclose a case of alleged

violation of departmental norms relating to storage of food

grains and replacement of damaged gunny bags. The

investigation itself reveals that the entrusted stock of CMR was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
12/13

found intact and no material has been brought on record to

prima facie establish dishonest misappropriation, criminal

breach of trust, cheating or obstruction of a public servant by

use of assault or criminal force. In such circumstances,

permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to

giving a criminal colour to what is essentially an administrative

or departmental lapse. The case, therefore, appears to fall within

the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,, particularly the category where the

allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected in

support thereof, even if taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged,

thereby warranting interference in exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court.

15. It is trite that every irregularity, negligence or

breach of departmental instructions does not ipso facto

constitute a criminal offence. Criminal law can be set in motion

only when the foundational ingredients of the offence alleged

are disclosed from the materials on record. In the present case,

the prosecution materials themselves indicate that the stock

entrusted to the petitioner was found intact and that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9713 of 2018(9) dt.29-06-2026
13/13

replacement of the damaged gunny bags was undertaken in

order to preserve the stored food grains in good faith. In absence

of any material suggesting dishonest intention, wrongful gain,

wrongful loss, misappropriation of entrusted property or use of

assault or criminal force against any public servant, continuation

of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not serve

the ends of justice and would amount to abuse of the process of

the Court.

16. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the

impugned order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned

A.C.J.M.-V-cum-Sub Judge-XIII, Rohtas at Sasaram in

connection with G.R. Case No.2382 of 2016 arising out of

Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No.1170 of 2016 is hereby set aside.

Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding against the

petitioner arising therefrom also stands quashed.

17. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

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

Court concerned forthwith for needful.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.