Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SOURENDRA PANDEY
Abdul Wahab Ansari, Son of Late Nijamuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
1. 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 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 Land Acquisiti
A First Information Report can be quashed when it fails to establish a prima facie case of criminal offense and undue delays violate the right to a speedy trial, as protected under Article 21.
Criminal proceedings can be quashed when based on unsubstantiated allegations, especially in cases of inordinate delay in the investigation, which infringes on the right to a speedy trial.
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
The right to a speedy trial includes pre-trial processes; excessive delay can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings if evidence is inadequate.
The court reaffirmed that subsequent restitution does not negate criminal liability where allegations disclose elements of misappropriation under IPC.
Subsequent restitution of compensation does not negate criminal liability; FIR allegations support continuation of criminal proceedings under IPC for misappropriation despite civil suit settlement.
The court ruled that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist in cases of fraud, emphasizing the necessity of a valid prosecution sanction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
Subsequent restitution of funds does not negate criminal liability if the FIR establishes prima facie misappropriation, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is exercised sparingly to prev....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
