Patna High Court
Pramod PrasadversusThe State of Bihar Through The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as it challenges a judicial order of taking cognizance; it is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Pramod Prasad filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash FIR No. 430/2021 and the cognizance taken by the court, relying on Supreme Court judgments that the FIR did not disclose any offence. The petition also sought to prevent any further adverse orders during the pendency of the writ. The High Court observed that cognizance had already been taken, making the petition a challenge to a judicial order, which is not maintainable under Article 226 as per recent Supreme Court rulings. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and dismissed it with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The petition was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to quash an FIR and the cognizance taken by a court.
- Whether the FIR, even if accepted as true, discloses any offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 427/341 IPC as per the precedent of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 190
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Indian Penal Code — s. 341, 379, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- writ petition
- Article 226
- quashing FIR
- cognizance
- maintainability
- Supreme Court precedent
- withdrawal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1782 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2021 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pramod Prasad Son of Sitaram Mahto Village -Yadopur PS -Harsidhi District
-East Champaran At Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Through The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mani, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking
following relief(s):-
"(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ of
certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. being
Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 430/2021 instituted
for the offences punishable under sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 427/341 I.P.C. and
is pending in the court of C.J.M. East
Champaran as the contents of the impugned
F.I.R. even if accepted to be correct do not
disclose or constitute any offence much less
the offences for which the same has been
instituted in terms of the law laid down by
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1782 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ of
certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. being
Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 430/2021 in the
court of C.J.M. East Champaran, whereby
and whereunder the police after
investigation have found the allegation
against the petitioner and one other true for
the offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 379, 427/341 I.P.C. not with
standing the fact that even if the entire
prosecution story is accepted to be correct
the same does not disclose or constitute any
offences in terms of the law laid down by the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar,
(2009) 8 SCC 751.
(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of writ of
certiorari for quashing any consequential
action/Proceeding including issue of order
of cognizance under Section 190 C.R.P.C.
which may be passed adversely affecting the
petitioner during the pendency of the instant
writ application in terms of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Anand Kumar Mahatta Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) since reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706.
(d) For issuance of such other writ, orders
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1782 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in facts and
circumstances of the instant case and to
mould the reliefs to which the petitioner may
found entitled to."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on query,
submits that the cognizance has been taken in connection with
Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 430 of 2021.
3. Since cognizance has been taken in the present
matter, the writ petition does not remain maintainable. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 13578 of 2024 and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
13424 of 2025, has held that against a judicial order no writ
petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner could not be
granted in the present writ petition as judicial orders are not
amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to
have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before
appropriate forum.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1782 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
5. Permission is accorded.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…