[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rajendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50360 of 2022
Arising out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2020 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Rajendra Kumar, S/o Late Budhan Mahto, Resident of A.G. Colony, Plot No-
A/78, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna-25, Ex Secretary, Patna Branch A.G. Housing
Cooperative Society, Ltd. Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandit, Advocate
Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
This Interlocutory Application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class-V, Patna in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S.
Case No. 46 of 2020 (G.R. No. 637 of 2020) by which a discharge
petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit,
Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025 stands allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
amend the prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance as well
as the order dated 04.09.2025 by which a discharge petition filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50360 of 2022 dt.10-03-2026
by the petitioner had been rejected by Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class-V, Patna.
3. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandit, learned counsel
assisted with Ms. Puja Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-I, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
4. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 26.06.2021 passed in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S.
Case No. 46 of 2020 (G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020) whereby and
whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV,
Patna has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The prosecution case is that the informant namely
Satyendra Kumar Singh had written a letter to the Officer In-
charge, Shastri Nagar, Patna on 16.01.2020 for lodging an FIR
against the petitioner for compliance of the Letter No. 123 dated
10.01.2020 issued by the District Co-operative Officer, Patna
stating therein that the letter written by the petitioner bearing
Letter No. 19-20/163 dated 13.12.2019 is not in consonance with
sub-section 4(b) of Section 41 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies
Act, 1935 since the Society was dissolved automatically due to
resignation of 10 Members of the Managing Committee of Patna
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50360 of 2022 dt.10-03-2026
Branch, AG Office Co-operative Society Limited, Patna including
President and Vice President. Thereafter, an ad hoc committee was
constituted by the District-Co-operative Officer vide Memo No.
1131 dated 15.05.2019 by appointing Sri Shrish Chouhan, the Co-
operative Extension Officer as a Special Officer still the petitioner
assuming himself to be Secretary has discharged the departmental
work illegally in the capacity of Secretary.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
Letter No. 123 dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure-2), the FIR was
lodged by the District Co-operative Officer, Patna alleging therein
that the Ex-Secretary, Rajendra Kumar, i.e., the petitioner was
claiming himself to be Secretary. On the basis of which the FIR
was lodged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and thereafter
cognizance was taken under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He further
submits that Letter dated 18.01.2020 (Annexure-4) would disclose
that the petitioner made a representation to the District Co-
operative Officer on 18.01.2020 where he had admitted that the
fault committed by him was not deliberate and he had also stated
that for last six years he was suffering from serious disease like
cancer. The District Co-operative Officer made a noting on the
representation itself that the FIR could be withdrawn after issuance
of warning against him. The same happened on 18.01.2020 but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50360 of 2022 dt.10-03-2026
apparently none took care of the same and the police submitted
charge-sheet on 31.12.2020 vide Charge-sheet No. 758 of 2020
and, thereafter, cognizance was taken on 26.06.2021. It is also
submitted that police during investigation recorded the statement
of District Co-operative Officer in paragraph 23 of the case diary
in which she had admitted that after issuing letter by him no loss
has been occasioned by the act of the petitioner. It is clear that the
cognizance order dated 26.06.2021 strangely refers to paragraph
23 but the learned Magistrate has not taken the pain of going
through paragraph 23 of the case diary which almost exonerates
the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) Anand Kumar Mohatta and
Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of
Home and Anr. reported in (2019) 11 SCC
(ii) Md. Naushand Khan and Ors.
vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2023
SCC Online Pat 9587.
(iii) Rajnish Kumar Bishwakarma
vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5290 of 2024).
8. It is settled law that for every wrong act criminal
prosecution is not the remedy but the person could be proceeded
departmentally by means of initiating departmental proceeding but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50360 of 2022 dt.10-03-2026
the Department has chosen short-cut method of harassing the
petitioner by filing criminal prosecution against him.
8. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance
dated 26.06.2021 passed in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020
(G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020) whereby and whereunder the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Patna as well as the order
dated 04.09.2025 by which a discharge petition filed by the
petitioner had been rejected is quashed and set aside so far as the
petitioner is concerned.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
