Patna High Court
Pradeep Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42816 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-713 Year-2015 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Pradeep Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Phulen Prasad, Residents of Mohalla- Postal
Park, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
… … Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yash Mathur, Advocate
Mrs. Kirti Mathur, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by
the learned C.J.M., Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as
‘Magistrate’) in connection with Khagaria (C. Nagar) P.S. Case
No.713 of 2015 (G.R. No.2638 of 2015), wherein the learned
Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘I.P.C.’) against the present petitioner
and other accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
2/14
3. The prosecution story as arises out of Khagaria (C.
Nagar) P.S. Case No.713 of 2015 instituted on the basis of written
application submitted by the Circle Officer, Khagaria pursuant to
the order of the Additional Collector, Khagaria in Misc. Case
No.11 of 2014, whereby vide its order dated 08.07.2015 in
Mutation Record No.866 of 2013-14, the Jamabandi No.318 in
favour of Surya Narayan Yadav was cancelled and directed to
lodge F.I.R. against the concerned Karmchari, Circle Officer,
vendor and purchaser of the land in question. It is alleged therein
that Jamabandi No.318 pertaining to land situated at Mauza-
Ranko, Thana No.269, Tauji No.6964, Khata No.133, Khesra
No.616 area-7 katha, which was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas
land has been mutated in the name of private person which is not
permitted. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that while
functioning as the Circle Officer, he permitted the creation of
Jamabandi of the aforesaid land thereby committing offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the charge-sheet and the case diary, learned Magistrate
took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the
present petitioner and other accused persons named in the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
3/14
vide the impugned order 19.10.2016. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, the
petitioner herein has filed the present Cr. Misc. Application
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 against
him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is wholly
unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same has been passed in
very mechanical manner without due application of judicial mind.
He further submitted that the petitioner herein, who was posted as
Circle Officer has merely discharged his official duties in
accordance with law by granting creation of a new Jamabandi
after considering the records and the reports submitted by the
concerned Karmchari and the Circle Inspector. It is submitted that
petitioner neither executed any sale deed nor derived any personal
benefit from the alleged transaction, and there is no substance to
establish his dishonest intention or any fraudulent conduct on his
part.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the entire dispute pertains to the correctness of mutation and
creation of a new Jamabandi in respect of a land in question. He
submitted that the Jamabandi in favour of the vendor was already
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
4/14
in existence and the petitioner herein has merely permitted a
mutation in favour of purchaser in accordance with the prevailing
government guidelines. Learned counsel further pointed out that a
title suit concerning the same property is pending before the
competent civil Court, thereby demonstrating that the controversy
relates to adjudication of civil rights and title over the said land.
Learned counsel next submitted that initiation of criminal
proceeding in the stated facts and circumstances of the case would
be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are
conspicuously absent from the materials collected during the
course of investigation. It is further submitted that there is no
allegation or material to indicate that the petitioner herein forged
any document, fabricated any record, used any forged document as
genuine, or acted with the requisite mens rea to cheat any person.
It is submitted that being a public servant, the petitioner herein has
acted bona fide in discharge of his official duties as a Circle
Officer. Hence, he cannot be prosecuted for his order without
sanction of the Bihar Government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. He
further submitted that while passing mutation order, he was acting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
5/14
as quasi-judicial body and he is also protected under the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985. In this regard, he has referred the judgment
dated 21.01.2026 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in
S. Kumar v. The State of Bihar reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Pat
364.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore,
submitted that taking cognizance vide impugned order by the
learned Magistrate and continuation of criminal proceedings
against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of the process
of the Court, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance based on the materials
available on record and at the stage of cognizance, meticulous
appreciation of evidence is not permissible under law. However,
learned A.P.P. submitted that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.
P.C. has not been taken to prosecute the petitioner, who was then
Circle Officer and he urged that appropriate judgment may be
passed in accordance with law to secure the ends of justice.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the materials available on the record, the principal
question which falls for consideration before this Court is:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
6/14whether the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 taking cognizance
of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471
read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner
suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise
of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.?
11. The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
of wide amplitude but is required to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and only to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled
that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is not expected to
meticulously appreciate the evidence or embark upon a roving
enquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations. The only
consideration is whether the allegations made in the F.I.R., the
materials collected during investigation and the police report, if
taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case against the
accused. Where the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged, the criminal proceeding ought not to be
interdicted merely because the accused raises a plausible defence
or because a civil dispute also exists between the parties.
Conversely, where the uncontroverted allegations and the materials
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
7/14
on record fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged
offences, or where the criminal prosecution is manifestly attended
with mala fides or amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court,
the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be
invoked to secure the ends of justice.
12. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and
the materials brought on record, it appears that the allegations
against the present petitioner stem from the approval granted by
him, in his capacity as the then Circle Officer, for creation of a
new Jamabandi in favour of the purchasers after the land had been
transferred by the recorded Jamabandi raiyat. The records reveal
that the approval was accorded upon receipt of the reports
submitted by the concerned Karmchari and Circle Inspector and in
accordance with the procedure prescribed for mutation
proceedings. There is no allegation that the petitioner fabricated
any record, manipulated any revenue entry on his own, or acted
beyond the scope of his official duties. The materials collected
during investigation also do not disclose that the petitioner derived
any pecuniary advantage or acted with any dishonest or fraudulent
intention while discharging his official functions.
13. It is further transpired from the records that the
gravamen of the dispute pertains to the nature and status of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
8/14
land and the legality of the mutation and Jamabandi created in
favour of the purchasers. It is not in dispute that a title suit with
respect to the same property is pending before the competent civil
Court. Merely because the revenue authorities subsequently
formed an opinion that the land was Gairmajarua Khas land or
that the mutation ought not to have been allowed, the same would
not, by itself, constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner
herein. It is to be noted that mutation proceedings are fiscal in
nature and neither create nor extinguish title. The legality of the
mutation and the rival claims over the property are matters which
primarily fall within the domain of the competent civil forum and
cannot, in the absence of the requisite criminal intent, be converted
into a criminal prosecution against a public servant who acted in
discharge of his official duties.
14. So far as the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 of the I.P.C. are concerned, the essential ingredients
thereof are conspicuously absent from the materials available on
record. There is no allegation that the petitioner deceived any
person or dishonestly induced delivery of property so as to attract
Section 420 I.P.C. Likewise, there is no material to indicate that
the petitioner made or participated in making any false document
or valuable security, thereby excluding the applicability of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
9/14
Sections 467 & 468 I.P.C. Equally, there is no allegation that the
petitioner knowingly used any forged document as genuine so as
to constitute an offence under Section 471 of the I.P.C. The
prosecution materials merely indicate that the petitioner approved
mutation proceedings in his official capacity, which, even if
assumed to be erroneous or irregular, cannot, without more,
amount to the aforesaid offences. Furthermore, there is no material
suggesting any prior meeting of minds or common intention
between the petitioner and the private accused persons so as to
attract Section 34 of the I.P.C.
15. It would be relevant to refer Section 197 Cr. P.C.
which provides for protection to a Judge, Magistrate or a Public
Servant from prosecution for any offence which has been allegedly
committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
his official duty unless sanction by the appropriate Government for
his prosecution is granted. Without such sanction, no Court can
take cognizance of such offence.
16. It is relevant to note that the prosecution starts when
the cognizance of offence is taken in terms of Section 190 of the
Cr.P.C. by a competent Court. Prosecution means a criminal action
before a Court of law for the purpose of determining guilt or
innocence of a person charged with a crime.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
10/14
17. A trial without jurisdiction renders the criminal
proceeding void ab initio. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. however,
does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done
by a public servant while in service. If the act is totally
unconnected with the official duty, there can be no protection.
18. It is to be noted that an act which may appear to be
incorrect is not necessarily a malicious act or decision. The
presumption of good faith can be dislodged only by cogent and
clinching material.
19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of
Rajesh Jha ‘Raja’ v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Pat 9104 held that the definition of a ‘Judge’ as enshrined
under Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is very wide
which includes quasi-judicial authority or body like Circle Officer
while passing order in mutation proceeding. Section 3 of the
aforesaid Act provides additional protection to Judges in regard to
any act allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.01.2026 in S.
Kumar (supra) which also relates to the order passed in mutation
proceeding after discussing the case laws on the issue, held that
any person who is legally empowered in course of a legal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
11/14
proceeding to give a definitive judgment would be regarded as a
Judge and it is not necessary that a person be formally designated
as such.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance without examining whether the
materials collected during investigation disclose the basic
ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The
impugned order does not indicate application of judicial mind to
the specific role attributed to the petitioner, who was admittedly
acting as a public servant in discharge of his official duties.
Admittedly, sanction to prosecute the present petitioner has not
been taken from the appropriate Government. Continuation of the
criminal proceeding, in the facts of the present case, would
therefore amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls
within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., warranting
interference to secure the ends of justice.
21. Moreover, the present case also squarely falls within
the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction as
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
12/14
335, wherein illustrative categories were carved out for quashing
of criminal proceedings. In the facts of the present case, even if the
allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the materials collected
during investigation are accepted in their entirety, they do not
disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the present
petitioner. At best, the allegations relate to an official decision
taken by the petitioner in the course of mutation proceedings while
discharging his statutory duties as the Circle Officer. The
prosecution materials do not prima facie establish any dishonest
intention, forgery, use of forged document or common intention on
the part of the petitioner. Consequently, the present case is clearly
covered by the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra),
particularly those where the uncontroverted allegations do not
constitute any offence and where permitting the prosecution to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
22. The aforesaid view also stands fortified by the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1947, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated
that the criminal process cannot be permitted to be used for
prosecuting a public servant merely because an administrative or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
13/14
official decision is subsequently questioned, unless the materials
on record disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences
and the requisite criminal intent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized that criminal law should not be invoked to penalize
bona fide discharge of official functions in the absence of prima
facie material indicating culpability. Applying the said principles
to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the petitioner, who merely accorded approval for mutation in his
official capacity on the basis of reports submitted by the
subordinate revenue officials, would amount to a misuse of the
criminal process.
23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.10.2016
passed by the learned C.J.M., Khagaria in Khagaria (C. Nagar)
P.S. Case No.713 of 2015 (G.R. No.2638 of 2015), whereby
cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the present
petitioner, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal
proceeding arising therefrom, so far as it relates to the present
petitioner, stands quashed.
24. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application is,
accordingly, allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42816 of 2017 dt.31-07-2026
14/14
25. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith
to the Court concerned for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 23.06.2026 Uploading Date Transmission Date
