Back
Patna HC Rejects Plea To Quash FIR In Criminal Case 851 of 2026
The , presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, has dismissed a filed by politician Naj Ahmad Khan, who sought to quash an FIR registered against him at . The Court affirmed that allegations of political victimization are insufficient to stop a legal process when an FIR discloses the commission of .
The Backdrop of the Dispute The petitioner, Naj Ahmad Khan, a politician and spouse of the Prakhand Pramukh of Kesariya, found himself at the center of a legal storm following his attempt to secure a license for a second firearm. The investigation revealed that a report submitted in his favor—falsely claiming he had no —was fraudulent, despite the fact that the petitioner actually holds a history of 23 criminal cases.
While police were investigating this discrepancy in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 , they alleged that the petitioner and a mobilized mob assaulted the law enforcement team. This confrontation led to the filing of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026 , invoking various sections of the , including those related to rioting, conspiracy, and assault on public servants.
Arguments on Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case was a direct result of political animosity. He contended that the police had no legitimate reason to visit the petitioner’s home regarding the firearm license investigation and that the state was deliberately targeting him due to his political standing.
The State countered by labeling the petitioner a "habitual offender." They informed the Court that evidence, including video footage and photographs, captured the assault on the police team. The State emphasized that the petitioner was the prime beneficiary of the falsified firearm license report, invalidating the claim that the investigation was an act of political retribution.
The Court’s Reasoning In examining the plea, Justice Arun Kumar Jha invoked the landmark decision in , which outlines specific criteria where a Court may intervene to quash an FIR. The Court found that the petitioner’s case failed to meet any of these standards.
Crucially, the Court noted:
"Merely saying that the petitioner has no role in submission of such false report would not cut much ice. For the simple reason that whoever was involved in such forgery, the same was being done to benefit the petitioner."
The Court further held that the allegations of political motive could not be sustained in light of the documented history and the evidence of a physical assault on a police party during their duties.
Key Observations
*
On the Claim of :
"In these circumstances and considering the long criminal history of the petitioner, I do not think imputation of
of prosecution is sustainable."
*
On Threshold for Quashing:
“The contents of the FIR clearly show commission of .”
*
On Judicial Intervention:
"It is apparent that the case of the petitioner is not covered under any of the instances/guidelines mentioned in the case of State of Haryana (supra)."
Implications of the Order By dismissing the petition, the has reinforced the principle that the of the High Court is not a tool to bypass scrutiny in cases where tangible, are alleged. This ruling stands as a cautionary reminder that while political rivalry may exist, it cannot be weaponized to mitigate or shield an individual from the consequences of alleged criminal activity, particularly when evidence indicates a blatant disregard for law enforcement. The investigation into the incident at Kesariya will continue according to the process of law.
