The court quashed the FIR as there was no prima facie case against the petitioner, affirming the narrow scope of intervention under Section 482 CrPC.

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 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 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 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 A