Patna High Court
BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA @ BHARAT BHUHAN GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The second FIR filed for the same transaction is not maintainable and must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Bhushan Gupta, a Block Panchayat Raj Officer, filed a writ petition seeking quash of FIR No.102/2018 registered at Katihar Town Police Station for alleged offences under IPC sections 166, 420, 409, 120(B) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The FIR pertained to alleged misappropriation of food grains in a godown, an incident for which the petitioner himself had earlier lodged FIR No.55/2018 as District Manager of the State Food Corporation. A subsequent District Manager later lodged the second FIR against the petitioner, who had already been exonerated in departmental proceedings. The petitioner argued that the second FIR was impermissible and that the State should have made him a co‑accused in the first FIR. The High Court held that the second FIR, being a duplicate proceeding for the same transaction, was not maintainable and ordered it quashed, while clarifying that the State could still investigate the petitioner under the first FIR. The petition was therefore allowed and the FIR quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a second FIR can be filed for the same transaction when an earlier FIR already exists.
- Whether the second FIR is maintainable under criminal procedure law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 166, 409, 420
Subjects
- FIR quash
- duplicate FIR
- double jeopardy
- criminal procedure
- essential commodities
- misappropriation
- departmental exoneration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1624 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Bharat Bhushan Gupta @ Bharat Bhuhan Gupta Son of Late Arjun Lal,
Resident of Village- Rajauli, Police Station- Rajauli, District- Nawadah, at
present residing at RD Tower A141, New Punaichak, Behind SBI, Rajvanshi
Nagar, Police Station- Rajvanshi Nagar, District- Patna, presently posted as
Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Khajauli, Block, Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, BSFC, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police, Purnea, Bihar
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Purnea, Bihar
7. The General Manager (storage), H.Q., Bihar, Patna.
8. The Deputy General Manager (PDS), Bihar, Patna
9. The District Magistrate, Katihar, Bihar
10. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar, Bihar
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Katihar, Bihar
12. The S.H.O., Town P.S.- Katihar, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
12 10-02-2026 The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Katihar Town P.S.
Case No. 102 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 166, 420, 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State as well as learned Standing Counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1624 of 2019(12) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
BSFC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
F.I.R. has been lodged in regard to misappropriation/missing of
food-grains in Bazar Samittee, Tingachhiya Godown in the
District- Katihar in regard to which F.I.R. has been lodged by
the petitioner himself being District Manager of the SFC,
Katihar and this F.I.R. was lodged against twenty three persons
including officials of BSFC, Katihar and transporters and later
on, in regard to the same misappropriation/missing of the food-
grains, this F.I.R. has been lodged by the subsequent District
Manager, SFC Katihar against the present petitioner by
subsequent District Manager of SFC, Katihar. On account of
this FIR, departmental proceeding was also initiated against the
petitioner, but he was exonerated in the departmental
proceeding.
4. He further submits that the second F.I.R. in regard
to same transaction is not maintainable. At most, the State could
have made the petitioner a co-accused in the first F.I.R. lodged
by the petitioner himself bearing Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 55
of 2018, but the present/second F.I.R. is not maintainable. As
such, this petition should be allowed quashing the F.I.R.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for BSFC contests the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1624 of 2019(12) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
However, he does not satisfy the Court how second F.I.R. could
be maintainable in regard to the same transaction and why the
State has not taken step to make the petitioner a co-accused in
the first F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner himself.
6. Hence, in my considered view, the F.I.R. in
question, being second F.I.R. in regard to same transaction, is
not maintainable. It is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed, quashing the FIR bearing Katihar Town P.S.
Case No. 102 of 2018.
7. However, it is clarified that the State has liberty to
investigate against the petitioner in the F.I.R. bearing Katihar
Town P.S. Case No. 55 of 2018 lodged by the petitioner himself.
If the investigation is already closed, he can seek permission
from the Court concerned for further investigation and start
investigation against him or he has also liberty to move an
appropriate application to summon the accused at the stage of
prosecution evidence under Section 319 Cr.PC, if so advised.
The petitioner will have also liberty to take all defence or raise
objection as per law.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…