Patna High Court
Abdul Wahab Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 29 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2974 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2016 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
Abdul Wahab Ansari, Son of Late Nijamuddin Ansari, R/o Israt Villa, House
No. 18, Aman Vihar, Harun Nagar, Section-2, P.S.-Phulwarisharif, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Permanand Prasad, Add. Land-Acquisition
Officer, Patna, Mohalla-Shantipuri, P.S.-Motihari Sadar, District-East
Champaran (Motihari).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 29-08-2025
Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Mr.
Mayank Raj and Mr. Rahul Singh, the learned Advocate as
also Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned Additional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
2/19
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present application has been filed
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for
quashing of the First Information Report of Gandhi
Maidan P.S. Case No. 455 of 2016, dated 10.12.2016,
which was registered for the offences under Sections 166,
167, 420, 421, 466, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present
application is to the effect that one Santosh Kumar
Srivastava, the then Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna, gave a written complaint before the Officer-In-
Charge of Gandhi Maidan Police Station for launching
prosecution alleging therein that an FIR be lodged against
the Government Officer for passing orders for payment of
compensation with regard to land in Village-Jujharpur,
measuring 0.8 acres of land, which was acquired for the
purposes of scheme for KV Grid Sub-Centre as per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
3/19
Land Acquisition Case No. 07/2008-09.
4. It was alleged that the case be lodged
immediately for payment of compensation which was
done by Shri Abdul Wahab Ansari (the petitioner), who
was the then Land Acquisition Officer, Patna since
transferred.
5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has
submitted that the present FIR is misconceived and the
petitioner had not committed any offence and he has
been made an accused in this case in pursuance of the
order dated 04.04.2013 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.
N. 17550 of 2012, wherein the main grievance of the writ
petitioner was that compensation was wrongly paid to
Shivpuran Rai and Shivlal Rai, who were nephews of the
writ petitioner.
6. It has been submitted that in the Land
Acquisition Case No. 07/2008-09, which was acquired for
the purposes of establishment of KV Grid Sub-Centre in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
4/19
particular village, out of total area of 0.32 acres of land,
compensation with regard to 0.16 acres of land to the
tune of 80% was paid to one Nageshwar Rai pursuant to
the order passed by this petitioner, the then Land
Acquisition Officer, on 09.09.2010. Subsequently, vide
order dated 05.03.2012, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of
the aforesaid writ petition were also paid 80%
compensation for their respective shares, i.e., 0.8 acres.
7. The case of the writ petitioner, namely,
Nageshwar Rai, was that he wanted the entire
compensation with regard to the total land, i.e., 0.32
acres of land and as such, the respondents in the writ
petition, viz., Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, had filed a
complaint/objection before the Land Acquisition Officer,
i.e., the present petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, had
passed the order for payment of 80% of compensation to
them and rest of the amount was kept pending on
account of one case being pending before the L.R.D.C.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
5/19
petitioner that it was on the petition filed by aforesaid
Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, in proper format, that the
petitioner being the Land Acquisition Officer, after
conducting an enquiry by the Amin and the Kanoongo,
passed the order of payment of compensation to the tune
of Rs. 4,37,363.85/- for both the claimants and cheques
were handed-over to them.
9. It has further been submitted that the two
persons, namely, Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, by
concealing the fact of Mutation Case No. 488/3/2009-10,
had wrongly claimed their shares over 0.8 acres of land.
As a result thereto, wrong compensation was paid to
them. It has also been submitted that it was on account
of the pressure being put by this Hon'ble Court in the writ
petition that respondent authorities have taken action of
lodging an FIR against the then Land Acquisition Officer,
i.e., the petitioner. However, from the perusal of the
FIR, it has been submitted, it would be evident that it was
a wrong order being passed by the petitioner due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
6/19
suppression of facts by the claimants and as such, the FIR
was misconceived.
10. The learned Senior Advocate submits that
the amounts which have been paid to wrong persons
could have been recovered through a certificate
proceeding and the authorities had proceeded with
issuance of charge against the petitioner and, thereafter,
the FIR was lodged against him.
11. Thus, it has been submitted that from the
above, it would be evident that even if the whole
allegation for the sake of argument be taken into
consideration, there is no ingredients of any criminal
offence much less the alleged offences being made out
against the petitioner and at best, the orders passed by
the petitioner can be termed as ignorance and
inadvertence or dereliction in discharge of his duty. It has
further been submitted that even in the departmental
proceeding, it has been found that there was dereliction in
duty on account of inadvertence and ignorance on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
7/19
account of not putting up of the old records before the
Land Acquisition Officer (the petitioner) by the then
Assistant and the Head Assistant of the Office.
12. It has further been submitted that it was
also found that on the objection filed by Nageshwar Rai
(the writ petitioner), dated 12.01.2010, the petitioner,
the then Land Acquisition Officer, had passed the order
that the same being entered in Award Register and order
to that effect was given to the In-Charge Clerk, namely,
Upendra Pandey. However, he failed to comply the same.
Hence, the delinquent officer, i.e., the petitioner, cannot
be held guilty or saddled with an act of omission. This
fact is further evident from the order passed by the
Directorate, which forms part of the FIR.
13. The learned Senior Advocate has pointed
out that despite such facts being noted in the
departmental enquiry, the aforesaid Assistant/Upendra
Pandey was neither proceeded in the departmental
enquiry nor any criminal case was lodged against him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
8/19
14. It has further been submitted that the
case was registered in the year 2016 and the petitioner
has also retired from service on 31.01.2022 and only
90% pension was released in his favour and even the
leave encashment and gratuity have been withheld till
final decision in the departmental enquiry.
15. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned
Senior Advocate, while drawing the attention of this Court
to several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in cases of Raghubir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar : reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481; Abdul Rehman
Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. : (1992) 1 SCC
225; and lastly in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.
Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. : AIR 1992 SCC 604 , has
asserted that long pendency of criminal cases hampers
the right of the accused to a speedy trial which forms part
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
16. It has, thus, been submitted that in view
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
9/19
of the legal propositions and the factual matrix of the
present case, the impugned FIR, referred to above, is fit
to be quashed.
17. Per contra, the learned APP for the State
has submitted that the present FIR was lodged on account
of wrong payment of compensation to one Shivpujan Rai
and one Shivlal Rai in Land Acquisition Case No.
07/2008-09
. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner, who was then District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna, without examining his earlier order dated
28.08.2010, passed another order dated 27.02.2012 for
payment of Rs. 4,37,363.85/- to the aforesaid Shri
Shivpujan Rai with regard to 0.8 acres of land through
Award No. 13(Kha). Similarly, Award No. 13(Ka) was
prepared for compensation amount of Rs. 4,37,363.85/-
in favour of Shri Shivlal Rai.
18. The learned APP has further submitted
that it was on account of such faulty payments that the
Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
Department, Govt. of Bihar, after considering all the fact
on record, had directed to take needful action for
recovery of the aforesaid amounts through the certificate
case already initiated against Shri Shivpujan Rai and Shri
Shivlal Rai. The Principal Secretary has further directed
to frame Prapatra - "Ka" against the then District Land
Acquisition Officer, Patna, i.e., the petitioner, and initiate
a departmental proceeding against the guilty persons and
also file a criminal case against them.
19. It has further been submitted by the
State counsel, referring to the averments made in the
counter affidavit, that the certificate case is still pending
and one of the recipients of the compensation, namely,
Shivlal Rai, died and his sons, namely, Kapil Rai and Vakil
Rai, have been substituted in his place as legal heirs and
for default in the certificate case, aforesaid Kapil Rai had
also been sent to jail and after six months of
incarceration, he was released. The General
Administration Department has also passed orders of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
recovery of five percent Pension amount of the petitioner.
20. The learned APP, in nutshell, has
submitted that the criminal case has been instituted
against the petitioner for willfully passing an order
ignoring the directions of the superior officers. Unless the
same is taken to its logical conclusion, it could not be
ascertained whether the petitioner had deliberately
released the amount of compensation in favour of the two
persons, who were not entitled for the same.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, it is evident that the present case was filed in
pursuance to the directions issued by the Principal
Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt.
of Bihar on account of the fact that the petitioner had paid
compensation to those persons who were not legally
entitled for the same.
22. This Court has also taken into account the
fact that a certificate case has already been initiated
against the persons who have been wrongly paid the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
compensation amount as well as the fact that in the
departmental enquiry, certain facts have emerged,
wherein it was found that the previous record was not
placed before the petitioner, who was the then Land
Acquisition Officer, while the subsequent order of
payment was being made in pursuance to the directions
of the petitioner.
23. From the perusal of the documents, which
is the part of the FIR, this Court has also noticed that
there is an undertaking by the persons who have been
paid the compensation that in case it is found that they
are not entitled or if a claim by the competent Court of
law/authority is made, they shall be paying back the said
amount of compensation.
24. It also transpires from the perusal of the
FIR that it is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner was in connivance with the said two persons
who have been wrongly paid the compensation amount
nor has he received any extraneous consideration for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
passing the said order in their favour. This Court, in fact,
notices that in the FIR it has been alleged that the person
who has directed for payment of compensation should be
booked without giving any details as to what was the
offence committed by him.
25. It is relevant to refer at this stage
Paragraph-9 of the judgment passed in case of Raghubir
Singh (supra), which reads as follows :
"9. ........................ Several questions
arise for consideration. Was there delay?
How long was the delay? Was the delay
inevitable having regard to the nature of
the case, the sparse availability of legal
services and other relevant circumstances?
Was the delay unreasonable? Was any
part of the delay caused by the wilfulness
or the negligence of the prosecuting
agency? Was any part of the delay caused
by the tactics of the defence? Was the
delay due to causes beyond the control of
the prosecuting and defending agencies?
Did the accused have the ability and the
opportunity to assert his right to a speedy
trial? Was there a likelihood of the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
being prejudiced in his defence?
Irrespective of any likelihood of prejudice
in the conduct of his defence, was the very
length of the delay sufficiently prejudicial
to the accused? Some of these factors
have been identified in Barker v. Wingo
(supra). A host of other questions may
arise which we may not be able to readily
visualise just now. The question whether
the right to a speedy trial which forms part
of the fundamental right to life and liberty
guaranteed by Article 21 has been
infringed is ultimately a question of
fairness in the administration of criminal
justice even as 'acting fairly' is of the
essence of the principles of natural justice
[In re K. (H.) and infant] and a 'fair and
reasonable procedure' is what is
contemplated by the expression 'procedure
established by law' in Article 21 (Maneka
Gandhi)."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra) in Paragraph-53 of the
judgment has observed as hereinunder :
"53. In Sheela Barse v. Union of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
India : [1986] 3 SCR 562], a Division
Bench comprising Bhagwati and R.N.
Misra, JJ. re-affirmed that the "right to
speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit
in Article 21 of the Constitution" and
observed "the consequence of violation of
fundamental right to speedy trial would be
that the prosecution itself would be liable
to be quashed on the ground that it is in
breach of the fundamental right." Thus,
the Court answered the question which
Bhagwati, J. had posed in the first
Hussainara Khatoon case. Accordingly,
they directed that so far as a child accused
of an offence punishable with
imprisonment of not more than 7 years is
concerned, a period of three months from
the date of filing of complaint or lodging of
the F.I.R. shall be deemed to be the
maximum time permissible for
investigation and a period of six months
from the filing of the charge-sheet as the
reasonable period within which the trial
should be completed. It was specifically
directed that if these time-limits are not
obeyed, the prosecution against the child
should be quashed."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
27. This Court has observed that the
petitioner proceeded by passing the orders of payment of
compensation on account of dereliction in duty by one of
the Assistants of the Land Acquisition Office and as such,
he could not have been saddled with the entire liability of
wrongly paying the compensation to persons who were
not competent to receive the same. This Court also finds
that it is only the petitioner who has been singled out and
no case has been lodged against the Assistant and the
Head Assistant of the concerned Office.
28. This Court is constraint to observe the
grounds enumerated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). Paragraph-108 of the
said judgment, wherein, the conditions under which an
F.I.R. could be quashed was enumerated, is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference :
"108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
2. .............................................................
3. .............................................................
4. .............................................................
5. Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused.
6. Where there is an express legal
bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/ or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also taking into account the various
judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
Court, this Court finds that despite passage of almost nine
years, the investigation has not yet been completed,
which clearly is against the settled law on the
fundamental right to life and liberty granted under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which is being infringed in
the present case.
30. Under such circumstances, the
continuation of the present proceeding would amount to
abuse of process of law. Moreover, the delay, which has
occurred in concluding the investigation, has caused
serious prejudice to the petitioner, leaving no option to
this Court, but to quash the F.I.R. of Gandhi Maidan P.S.
Case No. 455 of 2016.
31. This Court orders accordingly.
32. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 05/08/2025
Uploading Date 29/08/2025
Transmission Date 29/08/2025
