Patna High Court
MAHANTH RAM MOHAN DAS @ RAM MOHAN DASversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The 2019 FIR is not a duplicate of the 2016 FIR as it involves distinct facts, a different time span and separate offences, and therefore cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Mohan Das, a Mahant of a Hindu religious Math, was charged in two separate FIRs – one in 2016 (Dumra PS Case No 286) and another in 2019 (Sitamarhi PS Case No 669) – alleging misappropriation of trust funds. He sought quashing of the later FIR on the ground that it duplicated the earlier prosecution and was filed to harass him in a property dispute. The State and the Hindu Religious Trust Board contended that the two FIRs involved different offences, periods, accounts and accused, and therefore the second FIR was maintainable. The Court examined the principle of “sameness” of facts, the need for a reasoned order when taking cognizance, and the Supreme Court precedents on multiple FIRs and malafide prosecutions. It held that the two FIRs were not identical; the later FIR disclosed new facts and a longer period of alleged misappropriation, so it could not be quashed. The Court also set aside the trial court’s order taking cognizance without reasons and remitted the matter for a reasoned order, directing the two cases be tried together. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the criminal miscellaneous application allowing the cognizance order was granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered in 2019 is a duplicate of the 2016 FIR and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the trial court’s order taking cognizance without reasons is valid.
- Whether the two FIRs constitute the same set of facts for the purpose of preventing multiple prosecutions.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 166, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal law
- FIR
- quashing of FIR
- duplicate prosecution
- malafide prosecution
- Section 482 CrPC
- religious trust
- misappropriation of funds
- cognizance order
- reasoned judgment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.110 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-669 Year-2019 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mahanth Ram Mohan Das @ Ram Mohan Das Chela of Late Mahanth Ram
Sundar Das Chela of Late Mahanth Ram Sundar Das, Sri Ram Janki Math,
Poktola Tole, Bhatualia Math, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi but in the
F.I.R. it is written as Ram Mohan Das, S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh, R/o
Village- Bhataulia, Poktola, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Home, Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Bihar
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, Bihar
4. The Investigating Officer of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 P.S.
Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi Bihar
5. Braj Bhushan Kumar S/O Sri Ashok Kumar Singh R/O Village- Bhatolia
Paktola, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi
6. Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board vidyapati Marg, Patna, Pin Code-
800001
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24841 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2016 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mahanth Ram Mohan Das, Resident of Pakhtola Tole, Bhatauliya Math, Ward
No. 1, P.S. - Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Maheshwar Paswan Son of Late Shakhichand Paswan resident of Village -
Pakhtola, P.S. - Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 110 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate
For the BSBRT : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
2/35
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24841 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date :31-03-2026
The Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 110 of 2022
has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019
registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, by filing Interlocutory
Application No. 01 of 2023, the petitioner sought to add further
relief(s) of quashing the order dated 09.01.2021 and 18.02.2021
passed by the learned trial court issuing process of Sections 82
and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the
petitioner without any legal consideration during pendency of
anticipatory bail before the High Court and seeking direction to
the learned trial court not to take any coercive steps against the
petitioner during pendency of the matter before this Court. I.A.
No. 01 of 2023 was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2023 passed
by the learned Co-ordinate Bench and the relief(s) sought in I.A.
No. 01 of 2023 is part of the relief sough in the present writ
petition.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
3/35
2. Further, Criminal Misc. No. 24841 has been filed
seeking following relief(s):
“1. That this application is for quashing the
order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2017 passed in
Dumra P.S. Case no. 286 of 2016 dated 11.11.2016 by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi under
Sections 420, 409, 120(B), 406, 166, 467, 468 and 471
of the Indian Penal Code.”
3. It transpires from the record that Criminal Misc.
No. 24841 of 2017 has been ordered to be listed with the present
criminal writ petition vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the
written report of one Braj Bhushan Kumar, Sitamrahi P.S. Case
No. 669 of 2019 has been registered under Sections 409, 420
and 120(B) of IPC against the petitioner. The allegation in the
written report against the petitioner is that he siphoned of Rs.
32,00,000/- from the accounts of one Sri Ram Janki
Mandir/Math of Village Bhataulia, P.S.-Dumra, Sitamarhi,
which is a public trust and was registered under the Bihar
Religious Trust Board (hereinafter after referred to as ‘the
Board’) having Registration No. 427. The withdrawals were
made from 08.03.2013 to 16.11.2019 from the account of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
4/35
said Mandir/Math maintained in Central Bank of India, Marwari
Bazar, Sitamarhi Branch, though withdrawal was prohibited by
the Board. It has further been alleged in the written report that
the petitioner was not recognized as trustee and the earlier
Mahant and one retired Additional District Judge, who used to
operate the accounts, had died.
5. From the records, it also transpires that earlier a
complaint case bearing Complaint Case No 567 of 2016 was
lodged by one Maheshwar Paswan said to be the labourer of the
informant of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019, against the
petitioner alleging therein that Sri Ram Janki Mandir/Math of
Village Bhataulia, P.S.-Dumra, Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Math’) owned a number of properties, movable as well
as immovable, and earlier its sewayat namely Mahant Ram
Sundar Das Ji Maharaj used to look after the same who died in
the year 2013. The Board has taken control over the Math in the
year 1950-51 and since then it has full control over income and
expenditure of Math and declaration of sewayat. The Central
Government acquired 40 acres of land of the Math for
construction of office of Seema Suraksha Bal at Village: Paktola
and Arifpur. An amount of Rs. 1,74,39,000/- and Rs.
1,54,00,000/- respectively has been given as compensation for
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
5/35
land and Rs. 1 lakh was given for the trees. However, the earlier
Mahant got issued the compensation in his name and deposited
the said amount in his account and also in the name of the
petitioner in different banks. The Board, after coming to know
about this fact, made a protest and on the orders of District
Magistrate, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi
directed the Mahant to deposit the said amount in the Nazarat
but the then Mahant withdrew an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- for
his personal work and subsequently, he died on 08.03.2013.
During the lifetime of then Mahant, a ban was imposed from
withdrawal of money from 12 accounts. After death of Mahant
Ram Sundar Das, the present petitioner declared himself as
Mahant but the Board did not accept the same. However, in
connivance with co-accused, the petitioner withdrew an amount
of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Central Bank of India Branch-Dumra
and misappropriated the same. The matter was inquired into and
on the basis of inquiry report dated 16.12.2013,
recommendation was made to stop the withdrawal from the said
bank. On the basis of the said report, Chairman of the Board,
vide letter dated 13.01.2014, directed the co-accused to stop the
transaction from the joint account of the petitioner running in
his bank till further order. Further allegation has been made that
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
6/35
making forgery, the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- and used the same for his personal work and thus
misappropriated the same. Further allegation of
misappropriation of articles of Rs. 11,65,000/- has also been
made against the petitioner. The said complaint was forwarded
to the police and Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 dated
11.11.2016 under Sections 166, 406, 420, 409, 120(B), 467, 468
and 471 of IPC was instituted. In the said case, the petitioner
was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.02.2018
passed in Criminal Misc. No. 60931 of 2017. The police
investigated the matter and submitted final report bearing No.
59 of 2017 dated 27.02.2017 stating it to be a civil dispute.
However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, vide
order dated 02.05.2017, differed with the final report and took
cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 409,
120(B), 406, 166, 467 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner.
Against the said order of taking cognizance, the petitioner has
filed a quashing application before this Court vide Criminal
Misc. No. 24841 of 2017 and by order dated 28.02.2018, further
proceedings in Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 have been
stayed.
Thereafter, the instant FIR bearing Sitamarhi P.S.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
7/35
Case No. 669 of 2019 has been filed by the present
informant/respondent no. 5, which has been challenged on the
ground that it contained similar allegation which has been part
of Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016.
6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that on same
set of facts, lodging of second FIR is not permissible and,
therefore, continuation of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019
is misuse of process of law. Mr. Thakur further submitted that
lodging of repeated cases against the petitioner has been in the
background of property dispute of the petitioner with the
informant side. The Math was created by the ancestors of the
petitioner who donated landed property to it and they had been
doing the work of Sewayat of the Math from very beginning.
The great grandfather of the petitioner, late Har Prasad Singh,
has three sons, namely Jagdish Narain Singh, Bakhsis Narain
Singh and Sudesh Narain Singh. Sudesh Narain Singh became
hermit and came to be known as Ram Swaroop Das. When the
Board tried to take control over the Math, late Ram Swaroop
Das filed Title Suit No. 241/1952/39/1955 against the Board,
which ended in compromise and a compromise decree was
passed. Schedule-A of the decree was declared to be personal
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
8/35
land of Mahant Ram Swaroop Das whereas Schedule-B land
was held to be belonging to Math. It was also settled that
Mahant would be entitled to select his Chela who would be
Mahant of the Math after his death. In this manner, the last
Mahant, namely Ram Sundar Das, during his lifetime, executed
a deed of Sewayatnama on 03.06.1996 in favour of the
petitioner appointing him as his Chela with the right of
management of the affairs of the deities. A communication to
this effect was made to the Board and the Board vide its letter
dated 01.12.2005 recognized the petitioner, Ram Mohan Das, as
Mahant.
7. Mr. Thakur further submitted that when
consolidation proceedings started in the area, some personal
land of Ram Swaroop Das got recorded in the name of his
brothers, Jagdish Narain Singh and Bakhsis Narain Singh, who
subsequently executed a relinquishment deed dated 30.09.1963
in favour of Mahant Ram Swaroop Das. However, after their
death, their sons Ram Chandra Singh and Ram Dev Singh
refused to accept the relinquishment deed and filed a case before
Consolidation Officer claiming their right over the said property.
This case bearing No. 161 of 1982 was dismissed by the
Consolidation Officer, Dumra. The matter reached to this Court
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
9/35
in writ jurisdiction in CWJC No. 3862 of 1991 (Ram Chandra
Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others) but the writ was dismissed
vide order dated 31.07.1997 with finding of correctness of order
of Consolidation Officer. Against the order of the writ court,
Ram Chandra Singh preferred LPA No. 1071 of 1997 and the
same was also dismissed on 17.04.2007. Thereafter, Ram
Chandra Singh preferred a Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 15257 of 2007 and the
said special leave petition was also dismissed on 14.09.2007.
Thus, it is clear that apart from the original land of late Mahant
Ram Swaroop Das, the title of the land transferred to him
through relinquishment deed by Jagdish Narain Singh and
Bakhsis Narain Singh was held to be valid. The elder brother of
the petitioner, namely Shambhu Singh and son of Ram Dev
Singh and grandson of Bakhsis Narain Singh, namely Pankaj
Kumar sold some land of Khata Nos. 415 and 93 by mentioning
wrong plot nos. 110, 112, 115 and 124 to the Mukhiya of the
Village, namely Vijay Prasad Yadav and others, namely Ram
Kripal Ram and Kailash Ram. The petitioner has filed
Cancellation Case No. 247 of 2018 against this sale. Earlier a
complaint was lodged before the Board by a number of persons
on 14.08.2019 making allegation of misappropriation of money
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
10/35
of the Math but the Board did not find any withdrawal of money
from the account of the Math. Only withdrawal was made from
Account No. 3231068726 and with the interest and other
income, the Math was being maintained and the Board did not
find the allegation against the petitioner to be correct. Mr.
Thakur further submitted that there were two bank accounts of
late Mahant Ram Sundar Das for his personal and ancestral
property and the Math. The account of Math was opened in
Central Bank of India, Marwari Bazar Branch, Sitamarhi having
A/c No. 3178562193 in the joint names of petitioner and late
Mahant Ram Sundar Das. Subsequently, the Board, vide letter
dated 31.12.2012, passed an order permitting Mahant Ram
Sundar Das to withdraw Rs. 20,00,000/- for the construction of
Math under the guidance of Sri Shiv Shankar Prasad Verma,
Retired Additional District & Sessions Judge. The amount
deposited in A/c No. 3178562193 was ordered to be put in fixed
deposit for five years and it was further ordered by the Board
that its interest would be withdrawn for management of Math.
This order was issued vide Memo No. 1775 dated 31.12.2012.
Thereafter, Rs. 50,00,000/- was put in the fixed deposit and the
interest of which was being transmitted to the A/c No.
1686900413 which was in the joint name of late Mahant Ram
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
11/35
Sundar Das as well as the present petitioner for the purpose of
necessary expenses for maintenance of Math and the details
were submitted by the petitioner to the Board. Thus, Mr. Thakur
submitted that after the present Math was created by the
ancestors of the petitioner, who donated their personal land to
the deities of the said Math, other ancestral land remained in
their personal possession and devolved on all heirs including the
petitioner. However, only the family members of the petitioner
acted as Mahant of the Math from its very beginning.
8. Mr. Thakur further submitted that father of the
present informant, namely Ashok Singh, since deceased, had
earlier filed Title Suit No. 210 of 2007 before the learned Sub
Judge, Sitamarhi claiming personal right over some land of the
Math but the suit was dismissed so far as the other landed
property is concerned and the same has been pending for
adjudication over homestead land only and against the said
order, the father of the present informant filed First Appeal No.
195 of 2012. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the present
informant is not a member of the Managing Committee of the
Math as he was nominated by the District Magistrate to the
Managing Committee but his nomination was never approved
by the Board. Mr. Thakur next submitted that when the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
12/35
grandfather and father of the informant lost in civil litigation
before Consolidation Officer or in civil suit, the informant
adopted the technique of filing criminal cases against the
petitioner to put pressure upon him. Earlier also the father of the
present informant filed a case himself and got some cases filed
by some other persons including his labourer. Now the
informant has himself filed the present case and the background
shows out and out a motivated and malafide prosecution and,
therefore, the FIR of the present prosecution is liable to be
quashed.
9. Mr. Thakur brought to the notice of the Court the
contents of the FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 as
well as Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 to stress the point that
there is no new material in the subsequent FIR and the
allegations are almost same and similar. Mr. Thakur further
submitted that the allegation in Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of
2016 is against the petitioner and one Vikas Purve, the then
Branch Manager of Central Bank of India. The allegation
against the present petitioner is of illegal withdrawal of Rs.
25,00,000/- and misappropriating the same for the purpose of
his personal use. Further allegation is of selling some
construction material which was purchased by the earlier
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
13/35
Mahant for an amount of Rs. 11,65,000/-. Mr. Thakur further
submitted that this FIR came to be instituted on a complaint
made by one Maheshwar Paswan vide Complaint Case No. 564
of 2016. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the allegation of
misappropriation/defalcation of money against the petitioner
and co-accused Bank Manager is for the period from 2013 till
the filing of the said complaint in 2016.
10. Mr. Thakur further submitted that in the FIR of
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019, in his written report, the
informant has alleged that the petitioner withdrew an amount of
Rs. 32,00,000/- illegally from A/c No. 3231068726 and A/c No.
3178562193 from 08.03.2013 till 16.11.2019. Therefore, except
stretching the period of time of occurrence and enhancing the
amount, there is no new allegation in the instant FIR. Mr.
Thakur next submitted that, moreover, it is an admitted fact that
there has been a prohibition on withdrawal or operating the
account since 2014, therefore, there is no question of any further
withdrawal and for this reason, no specific details has been
given in the written report of FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.
669 of 2019. Mr. Thakur further submitted that on the same set
of accusation, Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 was earlier
instituted but the police, after investigation, submitted final
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
14/35
report stating it to be a civil dispute. But, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate differed from the police report and took
cognizance in the case which has been challenged in Criminal
Misc. No. 24841 of 2017 and this Court, vide order dated
28.02.2018, stayed further proceeding in the said case. Now, for
part of allegation, there could be no justification for lodging of
fresh FIR on 20.11.2019 vide Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of
2019.
11. Mr. Thakur reiterated that on the same set of
accusation, repeated FIR is not permissible and the same would
be in teeth of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. This
lodging of fresh FIR on same set of facts is also against the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai v.
State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254. Mr. Thakur further
submitted that the present prosecution is completely malafide
because when the earlier prosecution was stayed by this Court,
the present informant came forward and lodged this false case.
Being, malafide prosecution, the same would be covered under
one of the categories identified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 and hence, the subsequent FIR is liable to be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
15/35
12. Mr. Thakur further submitted that so far as
cognizance order dated 02.05.2017 of learned CJM, Sitamarhi is
concerned, the same could not be sustained. It is evident from
the impugned order that the learned CJM failed to assign any
reason for differing with the final report submitted by the police
and passed the order taking cognizance without disclosing any
reason. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and void. The
learned CJM, without application of judicial mind and without
going through the papers annexed, took cognizance and issued
summons against the petitioner. The police has investigated the
alleged offences mentioned in the FIR in detail and having
found no substance in the allegation submitted the final report.
If the learned CJM intended to pass the impugned order, he was
supposed to apply his mind to the case diary and the facts
mentioned therein but he did not do so and thus, failed in his
duty. Mr. Thakur further submitted that even the filing of Dumra
P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 is completely malafide as the
informant of the said case has greedy eyes over the Math’s
property and he had stood witness in various land dispute cases
instituted by one Ashok Kumar Singh and others. Moreover, he
is a labourer working under one Vijay Prasad Yadav, Ex.
Mukhiya, an adversary in litigation against the petitioner, to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
16/35
whom some property was transferred by one of the agnates of
the petitioner, namely Pankaj Kumar Singh. Therefore, it is a
clear case of malafide as the FIR has been lodged at the instance
of Vijay Prasad Yadav and others. Therefore, filing criminal case
is not only malafide and absurd but absolutely unwarranted and
taking cognizance in this matter by the learned CJM is bad and
without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order dated
02.05.2017 is liable to be set aside.
13. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5, vehemently contended
that there is no merit either in the writ petition or in the criminal
miscellaneous application and both are liable to be rejected. Mr.
Agrawal submitted that the said Math is duly registered with the
Board and thus it is a public religious trust. The said trust is the
owner of the large chunk of immovable property and large sum
of money is lying in the bank account of the trust. The money
was obtained on account of land acquisition proceeding. In
order to safeguard the property and money of the Math and to
avoid irregularities, one Shiv Shankar Verma, Retired
Additional District & Sessions Judge, was appointed as
representative of the Board vide order 07.08.2012 for operation
of bank account of the Math along with the then Mahant Ram
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
17/35
Sundar Das. Ram Sudar Das died on 08.02.2013 and
subsequently, Sri Shiv Shankar Verma resigned from his post.
Taking advantage of this void, the petitioner claimed himself to
be the Chela of Ram Sundar Das and illegally took over the
affairs of the Math and started using its property for his personal
gains. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Board, the
Board vide letter nos. 1912, 1913 and 1914 dated 13.01.2014,
respectively, requested the District Magistrate and the bank
concerned not to disburse any amount in favour of the
petitioner, who was also issued a show-cause notice on
18.01.2014 to provide details of amount withdrawn by the
petitioner. The letter nos. 1913/1914 dated 13.01.2014 was
challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 7475 of 2015 with
further prayer to allow the petitioner to make withdrawal from
the account of the Math. But no interim relief was granted to the
petitioner. Still, the petitioner continued to embezzle fund of the
Math and the District Magistrate, Sitamrhi, vide Memo No. 01
dated 01.01.2019 directed the bank not to allow anyone
including the petitioner to withdraw the amount of interest or
any other amount from the bank. Due to this misdemeanour of
the the petitioner, the District Magistrate constituted a trust
committee of 11 persons including the answering respondent to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
18/35
look after the functioning of the Math on 09.02.2019. Mr.
Agrawal further submitted that the petitioner is a person of
criminal character and altogether 13 cases have been instituted
against him with details mentioned in the counter affidavit filed
by the answering respondents.
14. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that there is no
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that on same set of accusation, earlier FIR bearing Dumra P.S.
Case No. 286 of 2016 was instituted. Dumra P.S. Case No. 286
of 2016 was not filed by the answering respondent and the
allegations in the FIRs are neither identical in nature nor arise
out of same transaction. Though in the earlier FIR, there are two
accused persons including this petitioner wherein in the instant
FIR, there is only one accused, the petitioner herein. Dumra P.S.
Case No. 286 of 2016 was registered for offences under
Sections 166, 406, 420, 409, 120(B), 467, 468 and 471 of IPC
whereas the subsequent FIR has been registered under Sections
409, 420 and 120(B) of IPC. Even the accounts and branches of
the bank are different from which allegation of embezzlement
has been made. The amount of money embezzled in the present
case is about Rs. 32,00,000/- whereas the amount embezzled in
Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 is 36 lacs. Time period for
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
19/35
offence is different as the period of offence was from
09.03.2013 till 11.11.2016 in Dumra P.S. Case Case No. 286 of
2016, in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019, the period is from
08.03.2013 till 16.11.2019. Thus, the allegations in the two FIRs
are not identical and they arise out of different transactions done
over different period of time from different bank accounts
situated at different branches. Offences under the instant FIR is
distinct from offences in the earlier FIR and they cannot be said
to form part of same transaction.
15. Mr. Agrawal referred to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court case of Rameshchandra Nandlal
Parikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 1 SCC 732, wherein it has
been held that in case the FIRs are not in respect of the same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or
more cognizable offences, nor are they alleged to have been
committed in the same course of transaction or the same
occurrence as alleged in the first FIR, then there is no
prohibition in accepting the second FIR. In the facts of the
present case, the present FIR was lodged by different informants
stating different set of facts and also for different cognizable
offences and hence, the prosecution is maintainable on the basis
of instant FIR. Mr. Agrawal distinguished the case of Babubhai
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
20/35
v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that in case of subsequent FIRs, the court has to examine
the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the
test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the
FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same
occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or
more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the
affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in
case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second
FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different
incidents/crimes, the second FIR is very well permissible. Mr.
Agrawal further submitted that if two FIRs show involvement of
different set of accused persons in offences committed at
different places involving different bank accounts as well as
different branches, having being committed over different
period of time, then by no stretch of imagination, it could be
said that offences made in the instant FIR are part of the same
transaction as the offences as alleged in Dumra P.S. Case No.
286 of 2016. Mr. Agrawal relied on the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of
U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has opined that where the incident is separate, offences are
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
21/35
similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of
such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope
of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered.
Mr. Agrawal next referred to the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha
& Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the second FIR was permissible for the
reason that the offences under which the FIRs were instituted
were different and that the offences under the second FIR were
alleged to have been committed during the course of
investigation of the first FIR. Mr. Agrawal next referred to the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varshaben
Kantilal Purani Vs. State of Gujrat, (2019) 11 SCC 774,
wherein it was held that the High Court had erred in quashing
the proceedings arising out of the subsequent FIR filed by the
informant by applying the principle of “sameness” and
proceeding on the basis that the subsequent FIR lodged by the
appellant was a second FIR while observing that the second
FIR/subsequent FIR was lodged on a complaint made by the
same complainant on account of occurrence of a separate
incident after a gap of 2½ years of the first complaint in regard
to completely different set of allegations and against different
set of accused, though including the only accused of first
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
22/35
complaint as well. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that so far as
averment made by the petitioner regarding present case arising
out of civil dispute is concerned, the compromise in the earlier
title suit has no relation or relevance to the present case. The
said title suit was compromised between the parties as a result
of which the land of Math was divided in two parts, one being
the land of the Math and another being the land of the erstwhile
Mahant. A part of land belonging to the Math was subsequently
acquired by the Government and in lieu thereof compensation
amount approximately 1 crore 49 lakh was granted to the Math,
which the erstwhile Mahant, in collusion with the petitioner, got
deposited in their personal account being jointly held by them.
This fact was brought to light in the FIR being Dumra P.S. Case
No. 286 of 2016. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that the
petitioner has been forum shopping and has filed an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2022 for quashing the FIR
of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 which was registered as
Criminal Misc. No. 2127 of 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner
filed the present writ petition on 22.01.2022 for the same relief.
When the petitioner succeeded in obtaining an interim stay
order, he withdrew the Criminal Misc. No. 2127 of 2022 on
16.02.2023. This shows the petitioner has not come before this
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
23/35
Court with clean hands and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on this sole ground. The petitioner has tried to twist
the facts and circumstances of the case in order to utilize them
in his favour and has made an attempt to mislead the Court and,
therefore, the writ is devoid of any merit.
16. Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6, at the outset, submitted
that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel adopting the
argument of learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 to certain
extent reiterated that Mahant Ram Sundar Das died on
08.02.2013 and huge amount of money was lying in accounts of
Math in question. In order to protect the property and money of
the Math and in order to avoid irregularities, the Board
appointed Sri Shiv Shankar Verma, Retired Additional District
& Sessions Judge, as its representative for operation of account
of the Math along with the then Mahant Ram Sundar Das vide
order dated 07.08.2012 issued vide Memo No. 837. Letter No.
775 dated 31.12.2012 was also issued to Mahant Ram Sundar
Das according him permission to withdraw Rs. 20,00,000/- with
stipulation that the expenditure of the said amount would be
monitored by Sri Shiv Shankar Verma, Additional District and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
24/35
Sessions Judge (retired). It came to the notice of the Board that
petitioner, Ram Mohan Das, had been withdrawing the interest
amount on the amount deposited in the account of late Mahant
Ram Sundar Das illegally in reference to which there was a
provisional order issued by the District Land Acquisition
Officer. It also came to the notice of the Board that the petitioner
had been trying to illegally withdraw the amounts deposited in
other accounts without seeking any permission from the Board.
Therefore, explanation was sought for vide letter dated
18.01.2014 from the petitioner. The letter nos. 1913 and 1914,
both dated 13.01.2014, have been issued in order to avoid
misappropriation of the money of the Math in question. The
challenge to these two letters had been made by the petitioner
vide CWJC No. 7475 of 2015. The said writ petition was
dismissed on 25.04.2023.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that,
however, the allegations made in the two FIRs are quite distinct
and are against different accused persons for different offences.
Therefore, subsequent FIR could not be quashed and hence, the
instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Similarly, adopting the arguments of other
respondents, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 3
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
25/35
that despite repeated restrictions, approximately Rs. 41,70,999/-
was withdrawn by the petitioner from 15.03.2013 and onward
from different accounts. Learned counsel further submitted that
the Board recognized the petitioner as Mahant on 17.02.2016,
however powers to withdraw the money was not given to him.
Learned counsel, however, admitted that no complaint has been
filed by the Board with regard to misuse and misappropriation
of money from the account of the Math by the petitioner, though
the aforesaid Math is registered under the Board. Learned
counsel further submitted that having regard to all these facts
and circumstances, the submission of the petitioner is not
sustainable that the two FIRs are based on same set of
accusation. Learned counsel stressed that separate cases were
instituted for separate cause of action. Learned counsel further
submitted that despite clear objection on withdrawal of money
or transfer, the petitioner kept on withdrawing and transferring
amount into his bank A/c No. 1686900413. Learned counsel
further submitted that, during investigation, the allegation made
by the informant against the petitioner has been found to be true.
Learned counsel, thus, submitted that since the two FIRs are
based on different facts and are against the petitioner as
common accused and in previous FIR, there is one more
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
26/35
accused, considering the dissimilarities, the subsequent FIR is
not liable to be quashed. Thus, the learned counsel submitted
that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same be
dismissed.
18. In Criminal Misc. No. 24841 of 2017, perusal of
order-sheets shows that initially in this case, learned senior
counsel has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.
2/informant, i.e., on 22.02.2018, but thereafter, none appeared
on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2. However,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that
there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
19. By way of reply, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been
recognized as Mahant by the Board and vide letter no. 2409
dated 06.01.2016, the Board has admitted that the Math in
question is a registered public religious trust under the Bihar
Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and the petitioner Ram Mohan
Das is a trustee of the said Math. Mr. Thakur further submitted
that some land of Math was acquired by the Central
Government and on account of this acquisition, the District
Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi made payment of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
27/35
compensation amount to the Math to the tune of Rs.
1,54,00,000/- approximately. This amount was deposited in
Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi Branch. Out of the said
amount, Rs. 50,00,000/- was fixed in A/c No. 3231068726 and
20,00,000/- was withdrawn for construction of the Math and the
Board authorizing the Mahant Ram Sundar Das to withdraw the
amount of rest amount of deposited in saving A/c No.
3178562193. The interest on the deposit of Rs. 50 lacs was
transferred in the A/c No. 168900413 and the said account was
joint account of late Mahant Ram Sundar Das and the petitioner.
The said interest amount was used as per direction of the Board.
After death of Mahant Ram Sundar Das, the petitioner, in a
capacity of Mahant, took over responsibilities and maintenance
of Math. After issuance of letter by the Board to stop the
operation of the account in the year 2019, no further operation
of the account was made by the petitioner. Mr. Thakur, at the
same time, further submitted that the State Government has
acquired some personal land of Mahant Ram Sundar Das and he
had been made payment of Rs. 1.75 crore approximately
towards compensation amount. This fact of acquisition was
acknowledged by the District Magistrate, Sitamrhi to the Board
vide letter no. 236 dated 16.06.2008. Thus, Mr. Thakur
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
28/35
submitted that there is no embezzlement. However, the agnates
of the petitioner, namely the present informant and his other
family members has been trying to send the petitioner to jail in
order to grab the entire property of the Math and they have got
instituted a number of criminal cases against the petitioner.
Rather, the informant and his agnates have sold several plots of
land of Math during the pendency of the criminal cases. The
petitioner never siphoned of any fund of the Math and has
regularly submitted the details of account to the Board, which
have been found to be correct.
20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties. So far as contention of the writ
petitioner about quashing of the FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.
669 of 2019 is concerned, the same is based on alleged
similarity of allegations of Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016
and Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019. Rather it has been
submitted that facts of both the cases are same and hence, no
criminal proceedings ought to have been allowed on same facts
subsequent to registration of Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016.
Arguments and counter arguments have been made before this
Court by the respective parties in support of and against the
contentions, and in their support various authorities and rulings
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
29/35
have been cited.
21. Since the ground for quashing of Sitamarhi P.S.
Case No. 669 of 2019 is that it is based on the same set of fact
as in Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016, it would be proper to
look in to the facts of both the cases. Dumra P.S. Case No. 286
of 2016 has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by
one Maheshwar Paswan for commission of offences under
Sections 166, 406, 420, 409, 120(B), 467, 468 and 471 of IPC
against petitioner and one Vikas Purve, the then Branch
Manager of Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi Branch, District
Sitamarhi. The complainant/informant has made allegation that
the petitioner got himself declared as Mahant on the basis of
forged and fabricated documents. Further allegation is that he
withdrew an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- illegally from the account
of Math. The complainant/informant has also made the
allegation that a number of irregularities were found and a
report dated 16.12.2013 has been submitted to the Board which,
in turn, directed the co-accused who was bank manager of the
Bank to stop the withdrawal from the account of the Math till
further orders. There is further allegation that this petitioner
conspired with co-accused and made illegal withdrawal of Rs.
14,86,600/- to his account and also withdrew the amount of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
30/35
interest of the Math. Thus, there is allegation of embezzlement
of Rs. 25 lacs of the Math against the petitioner. There is also
allegation about the petitioner selling construction material
worth Rs. 11,65,000/- which was purchased by the previous
Mahant for construction of the Math. The allegations pertained
to the period 09.03.2013 till the filing of the complaint, i.e.,
24.10.2016.
22. On the other hand, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of
2019 has been instituted on the written report of one Braj
Bhushan Kumar (respondent no. 5) under Sections 409, 420 and
120(B), who has alleged that the petitioner illegally withdrew an
amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- from the accounts of the Math from
08.03.2013 till 16.11.2019.
23. From the contents of the FIR, it appears that the
allegations might be similar but it could not be said that the
subsequent FIR has been lodged with same set of facts. In the
first FIR, the petitioner has been made accused along with one
other person with allegation of entering into conspiracy and
fabrication of documents. Then the period of alleged offences
were till 24.10.2016 in the first FIR whereas the alleged act of
defalcation/embezzlement extends upto the year 2019 in the
second FIR, which is still a matter of investigation. There might
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
31/35
be overlapping in the alleged embezzled amount in Dumra P.S.
Case No. 286 of 2016 and Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019.
But from the record, it could not be said for certain that only the
amount allegedly embezzled in Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of
2016 is the amount for which allegation has been made in
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon
v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 441, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that when a new discovery is made, the second FIR
would be maintainable. Thus, it appears the ambit of two FIRs
are different though there may be overlapping allegation or
same set of circumstances.
24. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that on
the basis of facts available on record, no case is made out for
quashing the FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019. For
this reason, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the
above cited decisions are not of any help considering the
dissimilarity of facts. However, considering the overlapping
nature of allegation, it would be in the interest of the parties as
well as in the interest of justice that the proceedings of Dumra
P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 and Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of
2019 are amalgamated. Hence, the Superintendent of Police,
Sitamarhi is directed to ensure that the investigation is
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
32/35
completed in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 at the earliest
and charge-sheet be submitted for consideration by the court
concerned. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Sitamrhi is directed to ensure that the case record of Sitamarhi
P.S. Case No. 669 of 2019 is assigned to same court which is in
seisin the matter of Dumra P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016. The
learned trial court which is in seisin the matter of Dumra P.S.
Case No. 286 of 2016 is directed to take up both the matters for
disposal and bring both the cases to their logical conclusion at
the earliest.
So far as relief(s) added by the petitioner by way of
Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2023 is concerned, same
being in the nature of judicial orders are not amenable to the
writ jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, the petitioner is at
liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before
appropriate forum.
25. Accordingly, the Cr.W.J.C. No. 110 of 2022 stands
disposed of in terms of above noted order.
26. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
27. In Criminal Misc. No. 24841 of 2017, so far as
contention of the petitioner about the order dated 02.05.2017
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
33/35
taking cognizance is concerned, it has been submitted that the
cognizance was taken despite the fact that the police submitted
final report finding the case not true against the petitioner and
the learned trial court differed from the opinion of Investigating
Officer and took cognizance. The order dated 02.05.2017 reads
as under:
“02.05.2017- The attendance of the
informant was filed. The case was called
out. The informant appeared before the
court accompanied by his learned counsel.
Heard on the Final Report. Perused the
record.
Following the investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted a final
report, characterizing the matter as a civil
dispute. Perused the FIR and the case diary
parawise. From perusal of it, a prima facie
case under Sections 166, 406, 420, 120B,
467, 468, 471 of IPC is made out against
the FIR named accused.
Therefore, disagreeing with the final
report filed by the Investigating Officer,
cognizance of the offence under Sections
166, 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 of IPC
is taken against the accused named in the
FIR, 1. Ram Mohan Das and 2. Vikas
Purve.
The matter is sent to the court of
ACJM-IV, Sitamarhi for trial and disposal.
Issue summons for appearance of the
accused.
List the matter for 02.06.2017.”
28. Bare perusal of the impugned order dated
02.05.2017 shows, it has been passed in a cryptic manner.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
34/35
Further perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the
learned trial court has merely mentioned that the case diary and
record was perused and the prima facie case under Sections 166,
406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 of IPC was made out and,
therefore, differing from the final report submitted by the
Investigating Officer, cognizance has been taken. Such type of
orders could not be sustained, if the learned trial court found any
material for taking a different view from the final report
submitted by the Investigating Officer, it should have mentioned
those facts and supported the order with reasons.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Raj
Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar And Ors., reported in 2003 (11)
SCC 519 has held that the reason is the heartbeat of every
decision, without the same, it becomes lifeless. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private
Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or
“rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process. Reasoning is the soul and heart of the
justice and the importance of reasoned judicial orders could not
be undermined. Therefore, a duty was imposed upon the learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.110 of 2022 dt.31-03-2026
35/35
trial court to give reason in support of its order even when the
order is only for taking cognizance.
30. However, it is a fact that the Investigating Officer
did not find the case true against the petitioner and the learned
trial court took cognizance differing from the final report, hence,
it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to furnish reasons
for taking cognizance as in the circumstance the cognizance
order could not be devoid of reasons. On this short point, I do
not find that the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 is sustainable
and hence, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back
to the learned trial court for passing order afresh, which must be
a speaking order supported with reasons.
31. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. No. 24841 of
2017 is allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 20.01.2026
Uploading Date 31.03.2026
Transmission Date 31.03.2026
Checking your session…