Kundan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4777 Patna

Patna High Court

Kundan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 December, 2025

Author: Purnendu Singh

Bench: Purnendu Singh

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54119 of 2025
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2012 Thana- VISHAMBHARPUR District- Gopalganj
     ======================================================
     Kundan Kumar S/o- Late Bhagya Narayan Singh, R/o Village and Post-
     Govind Pitaujhia, P.S.- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   The Superintendent of Police Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj
3.   The Officer In Chargte of Bishambharpur Police Station Gopalganj

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Uday Prakash Shrarma, Advocate
                                     Mr. Kaushik Anand, Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 16-12-2025

                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

      petitioner; learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and

      learned APP for the State.

                    2. The petitioner has preferred the application under

      Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR bearing

      Bishambharpur P.S. Case No. 37/ 2012 dated 31.05.2012

      registered under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 332, 353, 435, 427

      and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as, the notice under

      Section 94 of the BNSS and the warrant of arrest issued by the

      learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.

                    3.      The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
                                            2/7




         informant, who is the Principal of Rajkiya Polytechnic College,

         Gopalganj, has alleged that on 31.05.2012 some students

         entered into the classrooms and started using abusive and

         unparliamentary language. They allegedly assaulted the teachers

         and other staff of the college. They also vandalized the college

         property, and set fire to the private vehicle of the Principal as

         well as several motorcycles. The students also vandalized

         computer chairs and almirahs and set them on fire, and also

         broke window panes by pelting stones. In the said incident, two

         persons sustained injuries. The FIR has been lodged against 54

         students, including the petitioner.

                      4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

         petitioner submitted that the petitioner got admission in Rajkiya

         Polytechnic College, Gopalganj on 10.07.2020. The FIR in

         connection with Bishambharpur P.S. Case No. 37/ 2012, out of

         which, the present quashing application under Section 528

         BNSS, arises was lodged on 31.05.2012, making 54 students as

         accused including the petitioner by the informant, who is

         principal of the said institute. He further submitted that the

         petitioner was selected on the post of constable in CISF and he

         had joined as constable on 23.08.2010 and from the face of the

         FIR, it would appear that the petitioner merely being enrolled as
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
                                            3/7




         a student and his name having not been deleted from the

         college, is facing prosecution for the FIR which was lodged on

         31.05.2012

, subsequent to his appointment as Constable in CISF

on 23.08.2010. When the petitioner came to know that he is

named in the said FIR, he bonafidely informed the same to the

concerned officer of the CISF. Thereafter, an inquiry was held

and the inquiry officer on the basis of attendance register

available in the school, arrived at a finding that the petitioner

was present in Unit IG Mint, Noida on 31.05.2012 on the date

of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the said

fact was also recorded by the Superintendent of Police,

Gopalganj, that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 31.05.2012, the

petitioner was present in CISF Unit IF Mint, Noida, therefore,

the Superintendent of Police had directed to remove the name of

the petitioner from the column of the accused.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

submitted that it is well settled principle of law that while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article

226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would not

interfere with investigation in cases which are cognizable. It is

only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any

kind is disclosed in the First Information Report then the court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025

will not permit any investigation to go on. On these grounds,

learned counsel submitted that the Court should restrain itself

from usurping or complementing the statutory duty of the

police, and while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction,

interference to quash an FIR or complaint is warranted only in

exceptional cases, strictly within the parameters laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.,

reported in, AIR 2021 SC 1918

6. Heard the parties.

7. The Apex court in case of Neeharika

Infrastructure (Supra), held that the High Courts while

exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India or Section 482 CrPC, for quashing of FIR, must

sparingly exercise its power with circumspection in the rarest of

rare cases, and in this regard the relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

10.2. In Kurukshetra University [Kurukshetra University v.

State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] , this Court observed and held that inherent powers under Section 482CrPC do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice; that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the case before this Court, the High Court quashed the first information report filed by the Kurukshetra University through Warden and that too without issuing notice to the University, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. This Court noticed and observed that the High Court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025

was not justified in quashing the FIR when the police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceedings were at all pending before any Court in pursuance of the FIR. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)

8. The law in respect of quashing of FIR in exercise

of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS and Article

226 of the Constitution of India has been finally settled in case

case of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in

(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, stating that the present FIR is fit to

be quashed and set aside in light of the law laid down by the

Apex Court, particularly having fulfilled the conditions as

mentioned in paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal (supra),

which is as under:

"102. In this backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under chapter xiv and of the principles of law enunciated by 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 reproduce 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 in 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025

against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information report and other materials. if any accompanying the fir do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence hut constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under section 159 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and 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 of 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 malafide 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 private grudge"

9. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf

of the parties and having perused the allegation made in the FIR,

it is apparent that the occurrence took place on 31.05.2012,

pursuant to which the FIR in connection with Bishambharpur

P.S. Case No.37 of 2012 was lodged. The inquiry officer of the

department where the petitioner is working on the basis of

attendance register available in the school arrived at the finding

that the petitioner was present in Unit IG Mint, Noida on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54119 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025

31.05.2012 on the date of occurrence. The Superintendent of

Police upon investigation and receiving information had

directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of the

accused. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is allowed to

face criminal prosecution, the same will be abuse of process of

law.

10. I find that no case under Sections 147, 149, 341,

323, 332, 353, 435, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is

made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the FIR bearing

Bishambharpur P.S. Case No. 37/ 2012 dated 31.05.2012 is

hereby set aside and quashed with respect to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the quashing application stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Sanjay/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.12.2025
Transmission Date       24.12.2025