Patna High Court – Orders
Akhilesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39081 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1275 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
AKHILESH KUMAR Son of Nandlal Pandey Village- Vishunpura Jivnarayan
Ps- Paroo Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Aadesh Kumar Chourasia @ Adesh Chourasia son of Jagdeo Mahto Village-
Baraipura Ps- Virpur Dist- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
5 09-07-2026
This case has been listed under the heading “To be
Mentioned”.
2. There is a modification in the judgment dated
18.06.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39081 of
2023. Thus, the above said judgment is modified and to be read
as follows:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the informant.
2. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner on
25.01.2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 1275 ‘C’ of 2022 under
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He was, at the relevant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
2/11time, a gazetted officer holding the post of Block Development
Officer under the Government of Bihar. The present petition
seeks to quash that order.
3. The prosecution case is that the complainant applied
for an e-rickshaw under the Mukhyamantri Gram Parivahan
Yojana in Virpur Block, Begusarai. His application was
approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer by letter No. 144 dated
28.06.2021. He was given an acceptance letter on 29.12.2021 by
accused no. 2, who is said to have been the BDO, Virpur at that
time. On the strength of this letter, the complainant deposited
Rs. 90,000/- with Jaymata Agency towards the cost of the e-
rickshaw. The agency completed the registration and fitness
formalities. When the agency later went to the BDO’s office to
verify the letter, it was told the sanction had been cancelled. The
complainant met the Naib Nazir of Virpur Block, who is said to
have demanded Rs. 20,000/- as a precondition for releasing the
subsidy amount. The complainant refused. He was then
threatened with false implication. He complained to higher
authorities, including the then BDO, and sent representations to
the Samaharta, Begusarai and to the Chief Minister by speed
post. No action followed. He filed Complaint Case No. 178 ‘C’
of 2022, in which cognizance was taken against the then BDO
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
3/11and the Naib Nazir under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.
4. This petition arises out of a second complaint. The
complainant alleges that on 04.07.2022, between 3 and 4 in the
afternoon, the present BDO Arun Kumar Nirala, the petitioner
Akhilesh Kumar as the former BDO, and Naib Nazir Ranjit
Kumar arrived at his house in a government vehicle. He came
out to meet them. He was abused. He was told that unless he
withdrew the case, he would be implicated in a false matter and
would spend the rest of his life in jail. Witnesses from the
neighbourhood are said to have reached the spot, at which point
the three persons left. On 18.07.2022, the complaint was lodged.
The sections invoked included, among others, Sections 504 and
506 IPC. After examining the complainant on oath and
recording the statements of two inquiry witnesses, the learned
Magistrate by order dated 25.01.2023 directed issuance of
summons to all three accused under Section 506 IPC.
5. Before passing that order, the learned Magistrate had,
by letter dated 23.07.2022, called for a report from the District
Magistrate, Begusarai. The District Magistrate replied vide
Letter No. 1808 dated 31.08.2022, forwarding the inquiry report
submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai by his letter
dated 26.08.2022. The inquiry had been conducted by the SDO
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
4/11into the complainant’s grievances. The SDO’s finding was
unambiguous: the complainant, knowing that his sanction was
going to be cancelled on administrative grounds, had filed the
complaint as a pressure tactic to prevent the cancellation. The
SDO noted that the acceptance letter issued in the complainant’s
favour had been recommended for cancellation by the then
BDO vide letter No. 965(K) dated 31.12.2021, on the ground
that the EBC quota under which the complainant had been
selected was already full. This recommendation was acted upon
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai, who in the meeting of
the sub-divisional level selection committee held on 23.05.2022
cancelled the selection of the complainant along with that of two
others. This material was before the learned Magistrate when
the cognizance order was passed. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance notwithstanding.
6. The petitioner was transferred from Virpur to Parbatta,
Khagaria by Government Notification No. 477842 dated
30.06.2021. He had not immediately joined the new posting.
The District Magistrate, Begusarai accordingly directed him by
Memo No. 933 dated 10.07.2021 to hand over charge on
12.07.2021. The petitioner complied. Charge was formally
handed over on 12.07.2021 and he joined as BDO, Parbatta,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
5/11Khagaria on 13.07.2021, as is borne out by the charge-taking
report vide Memo No. 714 dated 13.07.2021. By 29.12.2021,
when the acceptance letter is said to have been issued by him,
he had been out of Virpur for six months. By 04.07.2022, when
the visit to the complainant’s house is alleged to have taken
place, he had been serving at Parbatta for nearly a year. The
complaint attributes to him an act done in his capacity as BDO,
Virpur. He had ceased to hold that post before any of the events
in question.
7. Two inquiry witnesses were examined before
cognizance was taken. Chandan Kumar Sahni was examined as
E.W.1. Daulat Kumar was examined as E.W.2. Neither of them
named the petitioner. These witnesses were produced to support
the complainant’s version of the visit to his house on
04.07.2022. The petitioner’s name does not appear in their
depositions. The complaint, for its part, does not attribute any
specific words to the petitioner. It does not say what he said,
what he threatened, or what specific act he performed at the
complainant’s house. The allegation against the three accused is
a collective one, undivided and undifferentiated.
8. It also emerges from the record that representations
against the officers of Virpur Block had surfaced in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
6/11with local election-related proceedings in the area. The
complainant had moved multiple forums, including the
Samaharta, the Chief Minister’s office, and the criminal court at
two stages. The present complaint is the second criminal
complaint arising out of the same set of grievances. The first
had already resulted in cognizance under Sections 323 and 504
IPC against two of the three accused now before this Court.
Whether this pattern of escalating proceedings casts doubt on
the complainant’s bona fides is a question this Court does not
need to answer, given that the matter falls to be decided on more
fundamental grounds.
9. The complaint does not say what the petitioner said or
did at the complainant’s house. The inquiry witnesses do not
name him. In these circumstances, whether the ingredients of
Section 506 IPC are made out against him specifically calls for
examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined those
ingredients in Manik Taneja & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka &
Anr. Reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423, where FIR under Sections
353 and 506 IPC had been registered against a complainant who
had posted comments on a police officer’s Facebook page
alleging misbehaviour. In para 14 it is held as under:
“14. A reading of the definition of “Criminal
intimidation” would indicate that there must
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
7/11be an act of threatening to another person,
of causing an injury to the person,
reputation, or property of the person
threatened, or to the person in whom the
threatened person is interested and the threat
must be with the intent to cause alarm to the
person threatened or it must be to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do or omit
to do an act which he is legally entitled to
do.”
No such material is on record so far as the petitioner is
concerned. The inquiry witnesses do not implicate him. The
complaint does not particularise his conduct. Section 506 IPC is
not made out against him.
10. Independently, Section 197(1) CrPC bars a court from
taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed
by a public servant in the discharge or purported discharge of
his official duty, without prior sanction of the appropriate
government. The complaint proceeds on the footing that the
petitioner’s visit to the complainant’s house arose out of the
official dealings between the complainant and the BDO’s office
regarding the e-rickshaw scheme. That is the very basis on
which his presence at the visit is explained in the complaint. The
act is thus claimed to be connected with the exercise of official
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
8/11
authority. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
laid down the applicable test in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari
reported in AIR 1956 SC 44:-
“The offence alleged to have been
committed by the accused must have
something to do, or must be related in some
manner, with the discharge of official duty.
There must be a reasonable connection
between the act and the discharge of official
duty; the act must bear such relation to the
duty that the accused could lay a
reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful,
claim that he did it in the course of
performance of his duty. It does not matter
even if the act exceeds what is strictly
necessary for the discharge of the duty, as
this question will arise only at a later stage
when the trial proceeds on the merits. What
we must find out is whether the act and the
official duty are so inter-related that one
can postulate reasonably that it was done by
the accused in the performance of the
official duty, though possibly in excess of the
needs and requirements of the situation.”
In Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das, (2006) 4 SCC 584, this
position was clarified further:
“It is not every offence committed by a public
servant that requires sanction for prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
9/11under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; nor even every act done by him
while he is actually engaged in the
performance of his official duties; but if the
act complained of is directly concerned with
his official duties so that, if questioned, it
could be claimed to have been done by virtue
of the office, then sanction would be
necessary; and that would be so, irrespective
of whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge
of his duties, because that would really be a
matter of defence on the merits.”
In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 14 SCC 494,
where it was reiterated that once a reasonable connection
between the act and the discharge of official duty is established,
the protection under Section 197 must be construed in favour of
the public servant.
11. On the complaint’s own case, the visit was made in
connection with the e-rickshaw scheme administered by the
BDO’s office. The act complained of satisfies the reasonable
connection test. No sanction was obtained before cognizance
was taken. The cognizance order is therefore also vitiated under
Section 197 CrPC.
12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
10/11
categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section
482 CrPC may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. Two
of those categories directly apply here: first, where the
allegations in the complaint, even if taken in their entirety and at
face value, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged; and
second, where the complaint has been filed with a mala fide
purpose and allowing the proceedings to continue would amount
to an abuse of the process of the court. Both apply with full
force on the facts narrated above.
13. The petitioner had left Virpur in July 2021. The
sanction letter attributed to him is of December 2021. The visit
attributed to him is of July 2022. On both dates he was posted at
Parbatta, Khagaria, not at Virpur. The district administration’s
own inquiry, which was before the learned Magistrate,
concluded that the complaint was filed as a pressure tactic in
anticipation of the cancellation of the sanction. The inquiry
witnesses did not name the petitioner. The complaint does not
attribute any specific act or word to him. Section 506 IPC is not
made out. Section 197 CrPC required prior sanction before
cognizance could be taken; none was obtained. Allowing these
proceedings to continue against the petitioner would serve no
purpose of criminal justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39081 of 2023(5) dt.09-07-2026
11/11
14. The impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed in
Complaint Case No. 1275 ‘C’ of 2022 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai is quashed insofar as it pertains
to the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar. Complaint Case No. 1275 ‘C’
of 2022 shall stand terminated qua the petitioner. Proceedings
against the remaining accused shall continue before the court
below in accordance with law.
15. The petition is allowed.”
3. To that effect judgment dated 18.06.2026 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39081 of 2023 stands modified.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
