Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 299
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J
Raju Kanu @ Raju Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22192 of 2025 | PS. Case No.-57 Year-2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh
A Magistrate can take cognizance of offences if sufficient grounds are established, even if the police find no case against the accused, emphasizing the separate roles of police investigation and judicial evaluation.
Headnote:(A) N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 21(b), 27A, 29 - Quashing of order taking cognizance - Allegations against the petitioner based solely on co-accused's disclosure - No independent incriminating material against petitioner - Authorities made no error in taking cognizance based on the evidence available (Paras 2, 6, 12, 20).
(B) Jurisdictional exercise - A Magistrate is not bound by police's opinion but can take cognizance when sufficient grounds exist to proceed against an accused (Paras 10, 19).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated based on the recovery from his co-accused and was under medical treatment during the offense. The police found no evidence against him during the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the Magistrate's cognizance did not constitute an abuse of process, as there was a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations based on co-accused's statement alone were sufficient to implicate the petitioner and if the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the cognizance stage, prima facie evidence is assessed, and the Magistrate's discretion in the matter is affirmed as the law allows cognizance if an offence is disclosed.
Result: Quashing petition dismissed; the petitioner ordered to face trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case background and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant claims false implication and lack of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on investigation outcomes and court's review. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court's ruling on magistrate's powers regarding police reports. (Para 11) |
| 5. court emphasizes prima facie case requirements in cognizance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. conclusion on denying the quashing petition. (Para 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. That the instant application is being filed for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-1, Cum Special Judge SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Buxar in connection with N.D.P.S. Case no. 30 of 2020 arising out of Koransarai P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020 dated 09.06.2020 lodged under Sections 20 , 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 by which cognizance of the offences has been taken under Sections 21(b), 27A, 29 N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner.
3. On 29.06.2020, the S.H.O. of Koransarai P.S., on secret information, apprehended co-accused Dharmendra Ram @ Dharmendra Dom while he was fleeing and recovered 56 grams of heroin from his possession in presence of witnesses. The co-accused disclosed Raju Kanu, petitioner herein, as the source of the contraband, after which the seizure was made and the F.I.R. was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on the basis of his past antecedents, without any independent or incriminating material. As is evident from the F.I.R., recovery of 56 grams of heroin was effected solely from the co-accused, and the petitioner has been implicated merely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in law. During investigation, the police found the case true only against the co-accused and submitted charge-sheet accordingly, while no material was found to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case diary further records that during the relevant period the petitioner was under medical treatment for a fractured leg and was unable to move, and his mobile tower location was found in his native village, clearly ruling out his involvement. There are no independent witnesses and material contradictions exist in the prosecution case. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court; hence, the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the State have supported the impugned order taking cognizance stating that the court below after considering all the materials against the petitioner took cognizance under Sections 21(b), 27(a), 29 of the NDPS Act.
7. Having heard submissions made by both parties and the material placed on record, it appears that upon completion of the supplementary investigation relating to petitioner, supplementary case diary was submitted before the Court on 15.10.2020, and as noted in paragraph 24 thereof, the Investigating Officer opined that no case was found to be true against the petitioner and accordingly he was not sent up for trial, though admittedly no formal final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted pursuant to the supplementary investigation.
8. The record further discloses that in Koransarai P.S.
Case No. 57 of 2020, original charge-sheet No. 65 of 2020 dated 30.08.2020 under Sections 20 , 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act has already been submitted against co-accused Dharmendra Ram @ Dharmendra Dom, pursuant to which N.D.P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 is pending before the court below. As per the FIR and the case diary, 56 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of the said co-accused, who, in the presence of an Executi
