Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66457 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2019 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/o Upendra Narayan Singh R/o Village- Khuthan, P.O.-
Dihra , ,P.S- Obra, District- Aurangabad- 824130
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arvind Kumar Amar S/o Giranand Mandal R/o vill - Tharuapari, P.O. -
Khajuri, P.S. - Bhargama, Distt. - Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Gulfeshan, Adv.
Mr. Gyaneshwar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed for
quashing of First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as
‘F.I.R.’) of Karjain P.S. Case No.43 of 2019, dated 07.05.2019,
instituted under Sections 143, 341, 323, 353, 379, 427 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘).
3. The narration of facts, as disclosed in the F.I.R,
is that the petitioner along with 25 other students indulged in
creating nuisance and act of vandalism at Supaul College of
Engineering, affiliated to Aryabhatta Knowledge University,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
2/7
Patna and allegations were made of assaulting and damaging
some furniture and ransacking of office of the said College. The
dispute had arisen with regard to dissatisfaction amongst the
students with regard to internal marks given to them, However,
no serious damage or injury was caused to any one.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that offence
under Sections 341, 323 and the other invoked provisions of
IPC are not made out even on the facts of the case and so far as
Section 379 of IPC is concerned, the same is purely ornamental
in nature. By an earlier order dated 08.08.2025 passed by this
Court, case diary had been called for and order of stay of further
proceedings in the Court below with regard to the said F.I.R.,
had been passed. The present F.I.R is of the year 2019 and till
date the investigation has not concluded either against the
petitioner or other students. It is further submitted that
petitioners were totally unaware of the F.I.R and only got to
know about the present case by way of notice under Section
41A Cr.P.C. dated 11.08.2023 at stage of receiving character
certificate by the said College. It is pointed out that the
petitioner is faced with an extremely difficult and precarious
situation as he is a Civil Engineer by profession and despite
obtaining All India Rank 45 in Graduate Aptitude Test In
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
3/7
Engineering in the year 2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GATE
Examination’), is unable to apply for higher studies and secure a
good job for himself.
5. Learned APP for the State also does not seriously
oppose the present application for quashing as it appears from
the pleadings that Authorities had entered into a compromise
with the students and good relations were restored between
them. However, the students including this petitioner were kept
in dark with regard to the fact that an F.I.R. had already been
lodged.
6. In normal circumstances, this Court would have
issued notice to opposite party no.2 but it is also informed that
the opposite no.2, who was, the then Principal of the said
College, has now been transferred to some other place, which is
not known to them. In such view of the matter, this Court does
not find enough justification in issuing notice to opposite party
no.2 which would lead to further indefinite pendency of the case
and especially considering the fact that future prospects of the
petitioner and other students are at stake.
7. Facts of the present case reveal that the
petitioner, a 19 year old student of B.Tech, IInd year, along with
others is being prosecuted for creating nuisance in the College
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
4/7
premises on account of dissatisfaction with internal marking.
The incident would merely be an act of protest undertaken by a
number of students in youthful exuberance which later stood
resolved, but the strange and unfortunate part is that till date, the
investigation of the case still continues and the F.I.R. glares on
the face of the petitioner and others, causing impediment in the
shaping up of their career and other future prospects.
8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the F.I.R as also the
case diary which is available on record, this Court finds that the
present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of very petty and
trivial allegations and it appears that after lodging of the F.I.R,
good relations were also restored between the Authority and the
students. Allegations made in the F.I.R. also, per se, do not make
out offence as alleged against them. Thus, the case of the
petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of category 1 of the
categories cases as envisaged in the case of State of Haryana &
Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992 Supp (1) SCC335] and is,
thus, fit to be quashed.
9. At this juncture, this Court may gainfully refer to
the judgment of Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported
in (2023) 8 SCC 481, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
5/7
while holding that offences involving trivial disputes with no
progress would amount to undue harassment, has held in
paragraph nos. 5 and 6 as under:-
“5. Having regard to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties and to
the documents on record particularly from the cross-
complaints filed by the appellant and Respondent 2
against each other, it appears that the alleged
incident had taken place on 11-9-2014 in the office
of the appellant, and the charge-sheet was filed in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur
(U.P.) against the appellant in respect of the
complaint filed by Respondent 2. The said case is
pending without trial since 2015 in the said court.
6. Considering the nature of allegations against the
appellant which are of very trivial nature and
considering the fact that there is no progress made in
the proceedings since the charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant in the year 2015, the Court is
of the opinion that continuing the proceedings would
be a persecution and harassment to the appellant. As
such a petty incident which took place in their office
should have been resolved by the parties on that day
itself, instead of stretching it so far.”
10. Further, the aforesaid principle has also been
elucidated in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @
R.L. Chongthu vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2511, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised
that the right to speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and timely completion of investigation
is inherent thereto. It has also been held that long drawn
investigation not culminating into filing of the charge-sheet,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
6/7
without adequate justification, would amount to an abuse of
process of the Court. Paragraph no.21 of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“21……………………………………………….
(iii) While it is well acknowledged and recognised
that the process of investigation has many moving
parts and is therefore impractical to have strict
timelines in place, at the same time, the
discussion made in the earlier part of this
judgement, clearly establishes that investigations
cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out
of place to expect, after a certain point in time,
certainty- about the charges against him, giving
him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If
investigation into a particular offence has
continued for a period that appears to be unduly
long, that too without adequate justification, such
as in this case, the accused or the complainant
both, shall be at liberty to approach the High
Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC,
seeking an update on the investigation or, if the
doors of the High Court have been knocked by the
accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in
completion of investigation will only function as
one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its
wisdom, decides to entertain this application,
other grounds will also have to be considered.”
11. Further the very fact that since 2019-2024, the
investigation did not conclude leading to any charge-sheet
against the petitioner or others and the stay was granted only in
the year 2025 vide order dated 28.08.2025. Even as per the stay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66457 of 2024 dt.24-07-2026
7/7
order, only further proceedings in the Court concerned was
stayed and not the investigation. Thus, non-conclusion of
investigation after huge and substantial lapse of time also leads
to inference that allegations against the petitioner are not correct
and a small dispute has been blown out of proportion. The
investigation cannot be permitted to go on endlessly as the same
would result in persecution in place of prosecution. This Court
is also conscious of the fact that pendency of the F.I.R. is
coming in way of the future engagement of service of the
present petitioner who has bright future prospects.
12. Taking into consideration the comprehensive
view of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court would
proceed to quash the F.I.R of Karjain P.S. Case No.43 of 2019,
dated 07.05.2019 as against the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 27.07.2026 Transmission Date 27.07.2026
