An FIR cannot be quashed on grounds of mala fide prosecution when the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and the petitioner's conduct or criminal history undermines the claim of malicious institution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate Writ to quash the F.I.R. of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127/2026 dated 21.3.2026, registered u/s. 126(2) / 115(2) / 191(2) / 191(3) /190 /109 /132 /352 /351(2) of B.N.S., 2023 to the extent of the petitioner above named.

(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate Writ/Direction to the Respondents prohibiting them to take any coercive step against the petitioner in the abovenoted case.

(iii) For the issuance of any other appropriate Writ/Direction to the respondents as your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of Justice.

(iv) For the issuance of an appropriate Writ/Direction to the respondents to secure the constitutional right of the petitioner.”

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner a politician and his wife is Prakhand Pramukh of Kesariya Prakhand. The petitioner has also fought the Assembly Elections and secured 3rd position. Due to political rivalry, he is being made accused in a number of cases. Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026 has been instituted against the petitioner in the background of registration of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026. Now Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 has been registered against the petitioner and other coaccused as a report was submitted on application of the petitioner for grant of license for a second firearm mentioning that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Subsequently, it came to the notice that petitioner has altogether 23 criminal antecedents and a wrong report was submitted at the instance of the petitioner but the petitioner could not have any role in submission of such wrong report and it could be presumed that the authorities themselves submitted a false report so that the petitioner could be made accused in that case. In this backdrop of the fact with allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner in getting a false report being submitted for his criminal antecedents in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026, it has been alleged that when the police went for investigation in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026, the petitioner and other coaccused persons threatened and assaulted the police party but the allegations are completely mala fide as it is not believable that for investigation in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 police party would go to the house of the petitioner. When the petitioner has no role in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 there was no need to investigate the matter by going to the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it appears that due to political rivalry, the petitioner is being dragged in this case. Learned counsel further submits that considering the mala fide nature of FIR of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026, the same may be quashed.

03. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, at the outset, submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has a long criminal history. He is accused in altogether 23 cases. Even some of the persons who have been made accused along with the petitioner in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026, also bear criminal antecedents ranging from one to five cases. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is still under progress and evidence is being collected. The petitioner is the prime accused in Kesariya P.S. Case no. 127 of 2026 and when the police went to arrest the petitioner, the police team was assaulted and the facts clearly show commission of offences under Section 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 132, 352, 351(2) of the BNS. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of mala fide is false as the petitioner is having antecedent of large number of cases and merely saying that Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 shows mala fide of the prosecution is wrong and incorrect as the ultimate beneficiary of false report was the petitioner who sought issuance of license for