Patna High Court
Prashant Kumar vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26158 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2022 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Prashant Kumar Son of Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/O B2B Alakhraj
Apartment Boring Canal Road (Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir) PS
Budha Colony Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance
Department, 4th Floor Suchana Bhawan Opp. New Secretariat, Patna-
800015
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department, 4th Floor, Suchana
Bhawan Opp.New Secretariat Patna
3. The Additional Director General Of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Patna
Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police , Special Vigilance Unit, Patna Bihar
5. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Patna Bihar
6. The Enquiry Officer Cum Departmental Evaluation Commissioner, General
Administration Departmenta Government Of Bihar, Patna
7. The Presenting Officer Cum Deputy Secretary, Department Of Prohibition,
Excise And Registration Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-11-2025
Heard Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel along with
Mr. Anuj kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the
Special Vigilance Unit.
2. The petitioner has preferred application under
Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the FIR bearing Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025
2/51
Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 (Special Case No. 74 of
2022) dated 09.11.2022 registered under Sections 13(1)(b) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the "P.C. Act") and Section 120 (B) of the Indian
Penal Code pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance,
Patna based on secret information received by SP/SVU/Patna.
BRIEF FACTS
3. Briefly the allegation made in the FIR dated
09.11.2025lodged by the Special Vigilance Unit, registering Special Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022, corresponding to Special Case No. 74 of 2022 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, against Shri Prashant Kumar (Petitioner), Assistant Inspector General, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, belonging to the Bihar Registration Service are that Prashant Kumar joined service as a Sub-Registrar on 19.01.1996 and later served as District Sub-Registrar (DSR) in Vaishali and Patna. It is alleged that during his service tenure, he illicitly amassed disproportionate assets amounting to approximately Rs. 2,06,80,785, far exceeding his known lawful income sources. The alleged assets, both movable and immovable, were found in Patna, Basantpur (Siwan), Gurgaon, Uttarakhand, and possibly other locations. The FIR alleges that his legitimate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 3/51 income from salary, bank loans, and other known sources sums up to an amount of Rs. 2.95 crore, while his expenditures, including household expenses, loan repayments, children's education, and property registration costs, were about Rs. 2,57,74,486, leaving him with the saving of Rs.37,25,514 only. However, the total value of properties allegedly acquired by him is estimated at Rs. 44,06,299, leading to the conclusion that he possessed disproportionate assets of approximately Rs. 2,06,80,785. It is further alleged that he acquired these assets in his own name or in the names of relatives or associates, through corrupt means. Based on these allegations, a case was registered for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) and Section 120B IPC, and investigation was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Mukesh Kumar Saha.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner joined government service on 19.01.1996 as a Sub-Registrar in the Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration and has, ever since, discharged his duties with utmost integrity and has unblemished Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 4/51 service record since his joining in the year 1996 till 09.11.2022. The Petitioner earned successive promotions, first in 2013 to the post of District Sub-Registrar and thereafter, in 2018, to the post of Assistant Inspector General (Registration). No departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him.
5. Learned senior counsel submitted that the FIR has been registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry and scrutiny of the asset and income of the petitioner's parents, wife and other family members of the petitioner. The Special Vigilance Unit could not have reached any definite or lawful conclusion regarding alleged disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 2,06,80,785/- (approx.), rendering the FIR ex facie illegal.
6. Learned senior counsel informs that following registration of the FIR, raids were conducted on 10.11.2022 at multiple locations including the Petitioner's residence at B2-B Alakhraj Apartment, Patna: his parental home at Nai Basti, Mahadeva, Siwan; A.L.G., Tirhut Office, Muzaffarpur; and his rented premises at Aashiyana Plaza, Muzaffarpur. Immediately thereafter, the Additional Director General, Special Vigilance Unit issued Letter No. 1448 dated 10.11.2022 making sweeping allegations without any supporting documentary material, without informing that the petitioner totalling Rs. 98,00,000/-, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 5/51 with an outstanding balance of Rs. 87,16,172/- on the date of raid facts which a preliminary inquiry would have readily revealed. It was further submitted that the allegation regarding the Boring Road shop being valued at Rs. 36,00,000/- is false, as the registered sale deed shows the value to be Rs. 25,34,124/-, duly disclosed in the Petitioner's annual asset declaration. Likewise, the allegation of purchase of land valued at Rs. 41,00,000/- at Basantpur, Siwan in the name of the Petitioner's wife is wholly incorrect, as the land is only held on lease for a poultry farm at an annual rent of Rs. 1,20,000/-, with total expenditure of Rs. 1,71,835/-, as confirmed by Letter No. 1394 dated 01.09.2023 issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Siwan. The allegation of purchase of property at Pondha Vikas Nagar, Uttarakhand for Rs. 22,50,000/- in the Petitioner's son's name is also inaccurate, as the land was purchased by the Petitioner's father, an ex-government servant, through RTGS from his own bank account. Similarly, the allegation regarding purchase of Flat No. B2-B, Alakhraj Apartment, Patna valued at Rs. 9,38,274/- is unfounded, as the flat was purchased by the Petitioner's mother in the year 2002 from her lawful source of income and a housing loan from the Central Bank of India.
7. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 6/51 income tax returns of the Petitioner's wife, who has been filing returns from last 20 years for her MSME-registered business, were never considered by the SVU. Likewise, the declared income of the Petitioner's parents, both retired Principals, was also ignored. Learned Counsel submitted that had these sources been considered, no case of disproportionate assets could survive.
8. He further submitted that despite in absence of evidence, a departmental charge-sheet identical to the FIR and founded solely upon the unsubstantiated Letter No. 1448, which was issued without annexing any document. Even when the Petitioner repeatedly sought supporting documents, none were supplied. During the departmental inquiry, the Superintendent of Police (SVU) and the Investigating Officer were examined, who in their cross-examination have, both admitted that the Investigating Agency possessed no material or evidence in support of the allegations after nearly two years of investigation. Yet, the Inquiry Officer mechanically held the Petitioner guilty. The Petitioner has, throughout his service, submitted annual asset-liability declarations, fully disclosing assets in the name of the petitioner and his family members, including loans and liabilities. These were publicly available Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 7/51 and could have been verified easily by the Vigilance authorities. The Petitioner and his wife have been filing income tax returns for 25 years, all duly accepted by the Income Tax Department without objection. Ignoring these legal, verified financial records shows clear malafide and pre-determined intent to implicate the Petitioner.
9. Learned senior counsel submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Sirajuddin v State of Madras, reported in, (1970) 1 SCC 595, that before a public servant irrespective of his rank is publicly accused of acts of dishonesty amounting to serious misconduct or corrupt practice, and before any First Information Report is lodged against him, a suitable preliminary enquiry by a responsible officer is indispensable. The Apex Court has cautioned that the mere filing of such a report against an officer occupying a high position, even if ultimately found baseless, can cause incalculable harm not only to the individual officer but also to the department as a whole. The Apex Court further observed that where the Government has established a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, as in the State of Madras, and has entrusted it with conducting enquiries of this nature, no exception can be taken to an enquiry carried out by officers of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 8/51 such a Department.
10. Learned counsel submitted that this principle has well been discussed by the Apex Court in case of Lalitha Kumari v Govt of UP, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, that the essential requirement for registration of an FIR is that the information furnished to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, where the information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, the police are not required to immediately register an FIR and may undertake a limited preliminary verification or inquiry only for the purpose of ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is made out. Learned senior counsel submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified that the nature and circumstances warranting a preliminary inquiry depend upon the facts of each case. Illustratively, preliminary inquiries may be conducted in categories such as: (a) matrimonial or family disputes; (b) commercial offences; (c) medical negligence cases;
(d) corruption cases; and (e) cases involving abnormal delay or laches in initiating criminal prosecution, such as when the reporting of the alleged incident is delayed by more than three months without adequate explanation. The Apex Court has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 9/51 emphasised that these categories are merely illustrative and not exhaustive of situations where a preliminary inquiry may be justified and desirable.
11. Learned senior counsel submitted that the same principle was reiterated in the case of Charan Singh v State of Maharashtra, reported in, (2021) 5 SCC 469 and it was emphasized on the desirability and permissibility of enquiry at pre-FIR stage in corruption matters.
12. Learned senior counsel next submitted that in the present case was registered solely on the basis of an alleged secret information, and that the facts narrated therein have been incorrectly and selectively recorded with the intention of falsely implicating the Petitioner. He submitted that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a search was carried out; however, the seizure memo does not disclose recovery of any article, asset, or document which had not already been declared by the Petitioner in his annual statements of assets and liabilities filed before the Department, or in his income-tax returns filed year after year. He further submitted that even during the departmental inquiry conducted nearly two years after lodging of the FIR, no incriminating material was brought on record by the investigating authorities who themselves appeared as witnesses Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 10/51 and no material exists with the Respondent authorities to conclude that the Petitioner was in possession of disproportionate assets, rendering the entire action of the S.V.U. to malafide in absence of prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner.
13. Learned senior counsel further submitted that although a preliminary inquiry may not be mandatory in every case, its necessity has been consistently emphasised in several judicial pronouncements, particularly in matters relating to allegations of disproportionate assets, which mandate the officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police before authorising the Dy. S.P. to register the FIR, was required to arrive at his satisfaction on the basis of source information, its date of receiving, in absence of his arriving to satisfaction based on the credible materials, the whole action is violation of Section 13 (1) (b) r/w Section 13 (2) and Section of the P.C. Act. In the present case, the Respondents failed to conduct any preliminary inquiry, resulting in serious prejudice to the Petitioner and exposing him to unwarranted harassment. He submitted that the Petitioner is a well-reputed public servant serving in the Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, and that had a proper preliminary inquiry been undertaken, the baseless Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 11/51 nature of the allegations would have been evident at the outset and no action would have been initiated against him.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel submitted that the FIR, and all subsequent actions are vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, absence of evidence, violation of statutory procedure and malafide intent. The instant case reflects a clear misuse of power by the Respondent authorities. No verification of the Petitioner's statements of assets and liabilities was carried out prior to initiating criminal proceedings. The Petitioner has been unjustifiably implicated without any lawful basis, and the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
15. Per Contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Special Vigilance Investigation Bureau submitted that except where expressly admitted, all allegations and assertions made in the quashing petition stand specifically denied. He submitted that the FIR in Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 was registered on the basis of credible and concrete material indicating possession of assets Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 12/51 disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner, thereby disclosing a clear cognizable offence under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. Learned counsel pointed out, in detail, the extensive progress made in the investigation, including the collection and scrutiny of multiple bank accounts, loan accounts, educational expenditure records of family members, income tax returns, LIC premium payments, PPF accounts, and property-related documents. Learned counsel submitted that several serious discrepancies have emerged in the petitioner's claims regarding his income and that of his wife, including inflated and unsubstantiated claims of agricultural income, rental income, income from shares and securities, and gifts from relatives, none of which find support in the Income Tax Returns obtained from the departmental authorities. The learned counsel further highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the partnership documents produced, the suspicious affidavits procured after registration of the case, and the mismatch between the deed value and the actual consideration paid for the property at GV Mall, Patna.
16. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's contention regarding absence of preliminary enquiry Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 13/51 is wholly untenable in light of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Telangana v. Managipet, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87; CBI v. T.H. Vijayalakshmi, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5041; and the recent decision in State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D., SLP (Crl.) No. 16212 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before registration of an FIR in corruption cases when credible information disclosing a cognizable offence is available.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR, on its plain reading, clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence and therefore the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. Learned counsel submitted that law in this regard is well settled as in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.,reported in, AIR 2021 SC 1918 wherein the Apex court held that the principles in relation to the court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 CrPC with respect to quashing of FIR. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that High Courts must be cautious and slow to interfere with investigations. It held that the power to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 14/51 quash should be exercised sparingly and not be used to stall a genuine investigation.
18. Learned counsel submitted that the above stated principles have been reiterated and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision of CBI and Anr. Vs Thommandru HannahVijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr., reported in, AIR 2021 SC 5041 wherein in Paragraph no. 36 and 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have categorically laid down while the affirming the aforesaid decisions that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate on a petition seeking quashing of FIR, the High Court should have only considered whether the contents of the FIR as they stand on their face/prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence.
19. Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. vs Anu Mehta, reported in, (2015) 1 SCC 103, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that High Court does not conduct a mini trial or roving enquiry while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC. In the case of CBI and Anr. Vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this principles as laid Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 15/51 down in Gunmala Sales (Supra) applies squarely to the exercise of power by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while considering a writ petition for quashing of FIR.
20. Learned counsel next contended that with respect to the power of police to investigate a cognizable offence the law has already been settled since the case of King Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, reported in, AIR 1945 PC 18; wherein it has been held that "it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them, the duty of enquiry...".
21. Learned counsel in support of his submission, submitted that in the matter relating to disproportionate assets case against a public servant, the Apex Court recently in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs Aman Kumar Singh and Ors along with Uchit Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarhand Ors., has held that the High Courts should maintain a hands-off approach and not to quash an FIR pertaining to corruption case specially at the stage of investigation. The Apex Court has consistently held that courts should not ordinarily interfere with criminal investigations, as this is the statutory domain of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 16/51 police. This is particularly true for corruption cases, where the court has been firm in allowing the investigative process to proceed without undue obstruction. The court's functions begin after the investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed. An investigation should generally not be stalled by judicial intervention. This was notably established in the Privy Council's 1945 ruling in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (Supra) and was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980).
22. Learned counsel submitted that the Police autonomy is essential, Police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offenses without judicial interference and protecting this autonomy is crucial for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system. Further, the Hon'ble bench of Apex Court said it is not the court's function to monitor investigation process as long as it does not violate any provision of law, and it should be left to agencies to proceed in their own manner in interrogation of accused and nature of questions put to him.
23. As per the settled law in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), quashing of FIR is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases where no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 17/51 cognizable offence is disclosed. In the present case, the FIR clearly discloses commission of offence under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 That the petitioner's defense that the assets are legally acquired is a matter of evidence and can only be examined during investigation and trial, and not at this stage.
24. In this regard, learned counsel placing reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure (Supra) Tapan Kumar Singh, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4140; Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. v. Anu Mehta, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103; King Emperor (Supra) and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Aman Kumar Singh, (Supra) submitted that the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach at the investigation stage, especially in corruption and disproportionate assets cases, and should not conduct any roving enquiry or mini-trial while examining a quashing petition.
25. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, several documents are still awaited, and new facts continue to surface, demonstrating that the disproportionate assets may be much higher than what is reflected in the present FIR. Therefore, the petitioner cannot Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 18/51 claim quashing as a matter of right. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, permitting the investigation to proceed strictly in accordance with law.
ANALYSIS And CONCLUSION
26. Heard the parties.
27. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police, S.V.U., Patna alleged to have received credible informations regarding immovable properties of the petitioner much more than the known source of income lodged an FIR relating to Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 exercising his jurisdiction under Section 30 B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 36 of the Cr.P.C.) vested with the same power that the officer in charge may exercise within their police station under Section 173 B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 154 Cr.P.C.). . Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police authorized him under Section 17 of the P.C. Act to investigate the S.V.U. P.S. Case No.15 of 2022. The FIR and the authorization letter are reproduced hereinafter:
Information "Credible information exists to the extent that Shri Prashant Kumar belonging to Bihar Registration Service Govt. of Bihar and presently working as an Assistant Inspector General, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, joined as a Sub-Registrar on 19.01.1996 and thereafter worked as DSR in Vaishali and Patna. He while holding different posts as a public servant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 19/51 in Govt. of Bihar amassed huge assets illicity and intentionally to the extent of Rs. 2,06,80,785/-approx. which is said to be disproportionate to his known legal sources of income and which he is unlikely to account for satisfactorily.
The said properties both movable and immovable have been created in Patna, Basantpur (Siwan), Gurgaon and Uttrakhand and reportedly at other places in different states.
It is further alleged that Shri Prashant Kumar remained a corrupt officer throughout his service period and his lawful sources of income like net salary, bank loan and from other sources reportedly is around Rs. 2,95,00,000 approximately till date. He has reportedly no other legal source of income, as alleged.
It is further alleged that besides the kitchen expenses, the other expenditure of the accused include payment of bank loans, education, expenditure on children registration fee of landed properties are around Rs. 2,57,74,486/- approximately. Therefore, considering this amount, the likely savings of the accused is alleged to be to the extent of Rs. 37,25,514/-approximately.
It is further alleged that the accused has acquired both movable and immovable properties/flats/lands at Patna and other places in connivance with other persons/relatives either in his own name or others. As alleged, the total value of the properties acquired have been computed to the extent of Rs.2,44,06,299/- approximately.
It is further alleged that as against the above figures, the accused is in possession of Disproportionate Assets to the extent of Rs. 2,06,80,785/- approximately, which has been illicitly and intentionally earned by him as a public servant as against his legitimate income and verifiable/non-verifiable expenditure by corrupt and illegal means.
The facts mentioned above prima facie disclose commission of offence of possession of disproportionate asset by the accused Shri Prashant Kumar, Assistant Inspector General, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur who conspired to acquire this disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 2,06,80,785/- approx., by corrupt and illegal means illicitly which he is unlikely to account for satisfactorily and therefore, this case is registered u/s 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) r/w12 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended) and 120(B) of IPC and entrusted to Shri Mukesh Kumar Saha, Deputy Superintendent of Police for open investigation under proper authorization.
Date:- 09.11.2022 (J.P. Mishra)
Supdt. of Police
SVU, Patna
Signature/-
OFFICE ORDER
"Subject- Authorization u/s 17 of PC Act 1988 for
investigation of the offence u/s 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) r/w 12 of PC Act 1988 and 120(B) of IPC (as amended in 2018) against Shri Prashant Kumar & others.
Whereas it was made to appear in the information that the accused is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income and that there is reasonable belief that he came into possession of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 20/51 such disproportionate assets through corrupt and illegal means and investigation into the matter appears necessary, Shri Mukesh Kumar Saha, Dy.SP, SVU, Patna is authorized to investigate into the assets and liabilities of the accused aforesaid and to arrive at disproportionate assets held by the said accused.
The said Shri Mukesh Kumar Saha, Dy.SP, SVU, Patna is hereby authorized under section 17 of PC Act, 1988 to investigate the SVU PS case no. 15/2022 u/s 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) r/w 12 of PC Act 1988 and 120(B) of IPC against the above named accused person. He is also authorized on behalf of the undersigned to exercise the power under section 18 of PC Act.
Date:- 09.11.2022 (J.P. Mishra)
Supdt. of Police
Signature/-
28. Section 13 deals with the criminal misconduct of the public servants and prescribes the punishment for the commission of offence of criminal misconduct.
13. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7;
or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 21/51 or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation For the purposes of this section, known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
29. The Section 17 deals with investigation into cases under the Act and provides:
"17. Persons authorized to investigate Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,--
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan area of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 22/51 police officer of equivalent rank.
shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant;
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant;
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause
(e) of sub- section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
30. Section 17 provides that no police officer below the rank of an Inspector in the case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and any other metropolitan area notified as such and Dy. Superintendent of Police or a police officer of the equivalent rank shall investigate an offence punishable under the Act without prior order of the metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest thereof without warrant. According to the first proviso if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the Government in this behalf by general or special order, he can also investigate in such offences without the order of Metropolitan Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Class, as the case may be, or make arrest thereof without a warrant. The second proviso provides that where an offence Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 23/51 referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 is sought to be investigated, such an investigation shall not be conducted without the order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
31. In the present case as admitted, no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police before lodging of the FIR, visualising the same to be not mandatory and he has passed order dated 09.11.2022 under Section 17 of the P.C. Act directing the Dy.S.P. to investigate.
32. The question arises whether the S.P. on the basis of his self statement was required to record his satisfaction on the basis of credible known source of informations which came to his knowledge is required to reduced into writing upon satisfaction if cognizable offence is made out which is desirable in such cases where he was satisfied that primar facie cognizable offence is made out, it was not desirable to held preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR?
33. The question in respect of preliminary enquiry is desirable, is no more res-integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. v. @ T. Н. Vijayalakshmi and Anr. decided on 08.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1045/2021 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 24/51 with the situation where preliminary enquiry is not desirable, the course required alternatively is for filing of the FIR in following judgments:
(1) Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi(supra) (2) Bhajan Lal (supra) (3) Lalita Kumari (Supra) (4) P. Sirajuddin (supra) (4) Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (supra) (5) Channakeshava H.D. (supra) (6) T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (supra) (7) Nirankar Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5009 of 2024.
34. The Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), held that before proceeding against a public servant in matters of corruption, it was desirable to have a preliminary enquiry. Much before Lalita Kumari (supra), the Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra), had observed dishonesty, which amounts to serious misdemeanor or misconduct of the type alleged in such cases an FIR is lodged against accused, there must be some sustainable preliminary enquiry into allegation of the responsible officer.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 25/51
35. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra) put corruption cases under category in which preliminary enquiry may be made before registration of FIR. The relevant portion of Lalita Kumari (Supra).
36. The Apex Court in the case of T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (Supra) explaining the terms "may be made" in respect of preliminary enquiry has further clarified Lalita Kumari (Supra) by following observations:
19. It was held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory if the information received by the police officer/Investigating Agency discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. However, if the preliminary inquiry is conducted, its scope is limited to determine whether the information prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence and does not extend to verifying its truthfulness. The necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, corruption cases fall into a category where a preliminary inquiry 'may be made'.
20. The use of the term 'may be made' as noted in Lalita Kumari (supra) underscores that conducting such an inquiry is discretionary in nature and not a mandatory obligation.
21. Following the rationale of Lalita Kumari (supra), this Court in Managipet (supra) held that while the decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) noted that a preliminary inquiry was desirable in cases of alleged corruption, this does not vest a right in the accused to demand a preliminary inquiry. Whether the preliminary inquiry is required to be conducted or not will depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be a mandatory requirement, in the absence of which, an FIR cannot be registered against the accused in corruption-
related matters.
22. The relevant paragraphs from Managipet (supra) are extracted herein below:--
"33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the accused officer. The purpose Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 26/51 of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari (supra) is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient."
27. Thus, in our view the source information report dated 10th November, 2023, served as a critical piece of information which not only documented the financial discrepancies but also presented a clear, prima facie picture of disproportionate assets accumulated by the respondent but also demanded immediate and thorough investigative action. As we have noted above, the scope of preliminary inquiries is not to verify the absolute truthfulness of information, and it is only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not therefrom. The source information report in the case at hand clearly satisfies this criterion by comprehensively documenting the financial irregularities committed by the respondent and disclosed a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence involving acquisition of disproportionate assets, punishable under the PC Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 27/51 Court erred in concluding that the FIR was liable to be quashed on account of omission to conduct a preliminary inquiry." (emphasis supplied)
37. The Apex Court further while considering the source information report dated 10th November, 2023, it found to have been recorded by the S.P., who has arrived at his satisfaction that the disclosure in such cases don't call for preliminary enquiry then he proceeded against the accused to lodge FIR on the basis of credible information received by him, whereas, in the present case, there is complete absence of recording collection of the source information report by the S.P. and based on same without recording the source information proceeded to institute FIR allegedly based on credible information and then he has set into motion to enquiry can not be that it was in alleged involvement of petitioner in corruption.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (Supra), upholding the action of the Superintendent of Police, who, based on the credible information, which has been taken note specifically in paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment found that the FIR is based on the credible material based on known source of information. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also reproduced the source information in paragraph no. 9 in the case of Sri Channakesheva. H.D. (supra), which inter alia Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 28/51 is reproduced hereinafter:
"9. The source report was prepared by respondent no.2-Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and the same was submitted to the SP. The source report dated 05.10.2023 reads as follows:
To The Superintendent of Police-01 Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division Bangalore Sir Sub: Submission of Source Report in respect of Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, presently working at BESCOM, Jayanagar Division, Banashankari I stage, Bangalore for acquisition of wealth disproportionate to his known source of income-Reg:
With reference to the subject cited above, it is learnt as per the basic information secured that Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, presently working at BESCOM, Jayanagar Division, Banashankari I stage, Bangalore has acquired properties disproportionate to his income.
.......
Sri Channakeshava joined the services of Karnataka Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, Munirabad on 11- 11-1998 as Assistant Engineer and then promoted as Executive Engineer in BESCOM, Koramangala division and thereafter worked in Hebbal Division and at present he is working as Executive Engineer (V) in Jayanagar Division.
SOURCE OF CORRUPTION There is information that during his Government tenure of service he has acquired illegal properties excessively in the names of third parties ( benami ) and also in the names of his family members.' Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 29/51 Then after giving details of the assets of the officer, source report concludes as follows:
"As stated above, it is prime facie found that Sri Channakeshava H.D. has acquired properties disproportionate to his known source of income from the check period i.e., from the date of joining in Government service, from 11-11-1998 till 30- 09-2023 to the tune of Rs. 6,64,67,000/- which works out to 92.54%. It is also learnt that the above S.G.O. might be possessing some more irregular/disproportionate properties elsewhere in Bangalore City and other places either in his name or in the names of third parties ( benami ). If search is made in his own house at Bangalore and other houses at Srirampura Main road, Amruthahalli, Jakkur, Father-in-law's house at Nagawara, the place of work of the S.G.O., and the residence of his sister, there are possibilities of finding some more properties both movable and immovable, gold, silver articles, cash and bank deposits in excess disproportionate to his known source of income. Hence it is requested to take suitable legal action against the above-mentioned Government Servant by a registering a case under section section 13(l)(b) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act 1988."
39. The Apex Court finally summed up in paragraph no. 12 as follows:
"12. To sum up, this Court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed."
40. From all the subsequent judgments, it appears that the Apex Court while clarifying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), mandate that there should be satisfaction of the officer concerned and recording of the credible source information, reproducing such information Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 30/51 to arrive into his satisfaction before lodging of FIR becomes necessary in such cases where preliminary enquiry is not desirable and in absence of recording the date of information and source in detail in seisin of the source information report in detail and well reasoned, will certainly vitiate the accusation made in the FIR, if at all, the preliminary enquiry can be relaxed.
41. Considering the facts and after perusal of the record, it is noted that the FIR against the petitioner was registered by the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in the year 09.11.2022 allegedly on the basis of credible information alleging that Shri Prashant Kumar, who is presently serving as Assistant Inspector General, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, had illicitly and intentionally amassed assets amounting to Rs.2,06,80,785/-, which are purported to be disproportionate to his known legal sources of income. However, despite the lapse of nearly three years, the investigating agency has not completed the investigation, which, in the considered view of the Court, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
42. The Apex Court in similar circumstances, in the case of Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 525, after Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 31/51 analyzing that there is need for speeding up investigation and trial as undue delay in culminating the criminal proceedings is an antithesis to the constitutional protection enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that "the Court has to view it from pragmatic perspective and the question of delay cannot be considered entirely from an academic angle." The Apex Court dealing with the ground of delay to quash the criminal proceeding held the delay to be unfair and unreasonable and quashed the prosecution against them, who had allegedly abated the public servant to commit offence under Sections 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The Apex Court faced with the question of prolong investigation and trial that can criminal proceeding initiated against the accused considering the valuable constitutional right to speedy investigation and trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with the allegation under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, taking note of the unwarranted prolonged investigation relating to financial irregularities considering the lackadaisical manner of investigation quashed the criminal proceedings in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. the State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 16 SCC 17.
43. In the facts of the said case, the Apex Court in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 32/51 respect of the alleged offence, which was committed sometime in the year 1981 and FIR was lodged in the year 1987 and charge-sheet was submitted on 22.02.1991 and till that date, no witnesses were examined by the prosecution too uphold the constitutional right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India without going into the merits of the accusation against the accused of the said case and also questioning the age of the said accused at the time of commission of offence, has quashed the FIR. Similar is the present case as the alleged offence had taken place when the petitioner joined as a Sub-registrar on 19.01.1996 thereafter, while holding different posts in Vaishali and Patna the FIR was lodged in the year 2022 on 09.11.2022 and a departmental chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner on 06.03.2023 in which charges are identical to the one in FIR bearing Vigilance PS Case NO. 15 of 2022 in which there is no document annexed related to charges levelled against the petitioner.
44.In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the aforesaid FIR on the basis of no material collected against him in course of enquiry. In such circumstances, whether the Income Tax Return should be presumed to be true and correct Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 33/51 and can it be said that there was disproportionate asset?
45. The offence under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, which prior to its amendment through the amending Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26 July, 2018, provided as follows:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
46. In the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568, Bharat Parikh v. CBI reported in (2008) 10 SCC 109, Indu Jain v. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 341, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299, Apex Court has defined "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The ambit of the provision has been explained by the Apex Court in para no. 10 of the case of Kedari Lal vs. State of M.P. reported Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 34/51 in 2015 (14) SCC 505, which is reproduced hereinafter:
"10. The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has two elements, first, the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly, the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah [N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 17 SCC 83, while dealing with the said expression, it was observed that "... Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets from his service, will be the primary item of his income. [Other income which can conceivably be] income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment.'
47. In case of Vishwanath Chaturvedi v.
Union of India reported in (2007) 4 SCC 380, the Apex Court has observed that "submission of income tax returns and the assessments orders passed thereon, would not constitute a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known lawful sources of income as contemplated under the PC Act and that further scrutiny/analysis thereof is imperative to determine as to whether the offence as contemplated by the PC Act is made out or not."
48. In similar circumstances, the acquisitions being reflected in income tax returns, the Apex Court granted relief to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 35/51 the public servant in M. Krishna Reddy v. State [M. Krishna Reddy v. State reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45, it was observed as follows:
"14. ... Therefore, on the face of these unassailable documents i.e. the wealth tax and income tax returns, we hold that the appellant is entitled to have a deduction of Rs 56,240 from the disproportionate assets of Rs 2,37,842."
15. If the amounts in question, which were duly intimated and are reflected in the income tax return are thus deducted, the alleged disproportionate assets stand reduced to Rs 37,605, which is less than 10% of the income of the appellant. In case of Krishnanand v. State of M.P. reported in(1977) 1 SCC 816 and in M. Krishna Reddy v. State reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45, the Apex Court Court had granted benefit to the public servants in similar circumstances."
49. In Pankaj Kumar (supra), the Apex Court, quashed a case with the investigative delay, emphasizing:
"Investigations dragged on for over the years. This appeal arises from the final judgment seeking quashing of the charge-
sheet." In Paragraph 18 of the judgment it was observed:
"... 18. Tested on the touchstone of the broad principles, enumerated above, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, appellant's constitutional right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution stands violated. It is common ground that the First Information Report was recorded on 12th May, 1987 for the offences allegedly committed in the year 1981, and after unwarranted prolonged investigations, involving afore-stated three financial irregularities, the chargesheet was submitted in Court on 22nd February, 1991. Nothing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 36/51 happened till April, 1999, when the appellant and his deceased mother filed criminal writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings before the trial court. Though, it is true that the plea with regard to inordinate delay in investigations and trial has been raised before us for the first time but we feel that at this distant point of time, it would be unfair to the appellant to remit the matter back to the High Court for examining the said plea of the appellant. Apart from the fact that it would further protract the already delayed trial, no fruitful purpose would be served as learned Counsel for the State very fairly stated before us that he had no explanation to offer for the delay in investigations and the reason why the trial did not commence for eight long years. Nothing, whatsoever, could be pointed out, far from being established, to show that the delay was in any way attributable to the appellant. Moreover, having regard to the nature of the accusations against the appellant, briefly referred to above, who was a young boy of about eighteen years of age in the year 1981, when the acts of omission and commission were allegedly committed by the concerns managed by his parents, who have since died, we feel that the extreme mental stress and strain of prolonged investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the sword of damocles hanging perilously over his head for over fifteen years must have wrecked his entire career. Be that as it may, the prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance, which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the prolongation of investigation and the trial. The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate delay of over eight years (excluding the period when the record of the trial court was in the High Court), is manifestly clear. Thus, on facts in hand, we are convinced that the appellant has been denied his valuable constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial and, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against him in the year 1987 and pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur, deserve to be quashed on this short ground alone. (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 37/51
50. Inordinate delay in the investigation and trial cannot be ignored. Applying the principle laid down by the Seeta Hemchandra Shasheetal (Supra) and Pankaj Kumar (supra), the entire proceeding can be quashed considering that the FIR was lodged in year 2022 i.e on 09.11.2022 yet the trial remains at a very nascent stage as on date It can be held that in the present case, the delay of over more than three years, from the check period the prosecution against the petitioner can be quashed on account of unexplained undue delay. The sluggish proceedings has caused mental trauma and prejudice to the petitioner. Till date only two witnesses have been examined warranting quashing the entire proceeding to protect the Fundamental Right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
51. At the stage of FIR, the scope of examination is confined to the allegations as disclosed in the FIR alone. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Of Karnataka s Muniswamy & Ors reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now 528 BNSS) and held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 38/51 abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinunder:
"7. In the exercise of the wholesome power u/s 482 of the Act 2 of 1974 (Section 561 of 1898 Code), the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion thist allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a count proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind lam prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the protection rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. Without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
52. In other words, when the allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence the complaint cannot be quashed by placing reliance on materials that pertain to the defence of the accused, for the truth or falsity of the allegations, as also the plausibility of the defence plea, can he determined only upon a proper investigation or at the stage of trial. I am also guided to take this view from the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vs Mohd. Khalique and Anr. reported Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 39/51 in (2002) 1 SCC 652, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with the quashing of FIR, observed as follows:
"7. In Bhajanlal case, this Court has also held that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that loo in the rarest or rare cases. The present case is not rarest of rare case.
8. In view of the settled legal position and as offences have been disclosed in the FIR, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the investigation and should have permitted the police to complete it. We accordingly hold that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the entire proceedings and ought not to have thwarted the prosecution."
53. It is worth importance to note that, in Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Kiley & Ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not an absolute rule of law that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now, 528 BNSS) or, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (Now, 457 BNSS), cannot, under any circumstances, look into the nature of public document or such materials, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in order to ascertain if the criminal prosecution should or should not be allowed to proceed. In fact, the Supreme Court has also made it clear, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), that no greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case The Supreme Court has, therefore, held, in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 40/51 Harshetidra Kumar D. (supra), that the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the un-controverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company, which, if looked into, would have made it clear that the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company was much before the cheques had been issued by the company. The relevant observations, which appear. in this regard, at paragraph 25 and 26, in Harshendra Kumat D. (supra), read as under:
25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon be the accused, which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspension or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code it is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents which are beyond suspension or doubt placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be trivesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.
26 Criminal prosecution is a serious matter it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. In our opinion, the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the un-controverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of Director of the Company. Had these documents been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 41/51 considered by the High Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant has resigned much before the cheques were issued by the Company" (emphasis supplied)
54. From the law laid down in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), it stands clarified that when the High Court is approached for quashing of a criminal prosecution in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Now Section 538 BNSS) at in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.PC (Now Section 457 BNSS), the Court must remain mindful that criminal prosecution directly impacts the liberty of an individual and that no greater injury can be inflicted upon a person's reputation by unnecessarily subjecting him to a criminal trial. Consequently, there is no absolute bar on the High Court's power to take into consideration any uncontroverted or unimpeachable document that is already on the record for the purpose of determining whether the criminal proceedings should be permitted to continue. Where, on the basis of such public or uncontroverted material, the Court is satisfied that allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, it is not only empowered, but duty bound to quash the proceedings.
55. It is, no doubt, correct that while exercising its Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 42/51 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC (528 BNSS), or its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 IPC (457 BNSS) when a complaint or FIR is sought to be quashed, it is not open to the High Court to examine the defence of the accused or to embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or veracity of the allegations. Nonetheless, in appropriate cases, where the documents produced by the accused are of unimpeachable character and beyond suspicion or doubt, and such material demonstrably renders the accusations unsustainable, it would amount to a perversity of justice to compel the accused to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial. To permit the prosecution to proceed in such circumstances would amount to a dermal of justice and would constitute a clear abuse of the process of the Court.
56. Coupled with the above, it also stands well- settled that an FIR or complaint may be quashed if it is found to be actuated by mala fides, or if the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no reasonable person would accept them as true. Likewise, quashing is warranted where the FIR or complains is demonstrably lodged as a counterblast.
57. In the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), the Apex Court laid down as follows:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 43/51 "102. In this backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under chapter xiv and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduce above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though in may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information report and other materials. if any accompanying the fir do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence hut constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under section 159 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned. Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge"
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 44/51
58. In the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), the Apex Court gave a note of caution on the power of quashing of Criminal proceeding in the following words:
"103 We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 while considering intent of malafide has held as under:-
"8. Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of CrPC. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 45/51 their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle of quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 46/51
60. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors. reported in (2017) 6 SCC 263, held that before arriving at a conclusion regarding the probative value of the income tax returns, has examined in detail the previous decisions of this Court where there were not only assessment orders but also decisions of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. It is only after considering this aspect that the Apex Court laid down that the Income Tax Returns and Orders passed in IT Proceedings are not conclusive proof, the proposition has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Puneet Sabharwal vs. C.B.I. reported in (2024) INSC 221.
61. Recently, the Apex Court in the Nirankar Nath Pandey (Supra), while quashing the FIR, which was filed in the year 2023, subsequent to the FIR of year 2018 considering the implication of the notice issued by the Department of Vigilance to appellant and upon submission of the details by the appellant before the Vigilance authority, it was alleged that the appellant was found to have amassed asset including living expenses is more than his known income, which is said to be disproportionate asset in question. The report was forwarded to the Government vide Letter dated 20.04.2023 and consideration Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 47/51 in this regard is made in paragraphs no. 4 to 6 of the said judgment, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"4. Prior to the present FIR, another FIR was lodged in the year 2018, bearing Case Crime No.476 of 2018 for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act in Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, U.P against some officials of the Excise Department, U.P., wherein the present Appellant was implicated and he was subsequently enlarged on bail. This Case Crime No.476 of 2018 is pending before the Trial Court.
5. Due to the earlier FIR, a notice dated 25.08.2020 was issued to the Appellant by the Department of Vigilance Establishment, U.P. whereby the Appellant was directed to submit the Statement of Declaration of Assets and other income details. Pursuant to this notice, the Appellant submitted all such details before the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department.
6. The Appellant was working as Assistant Excise Commissioner when the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment initiated an inquiry against him. This open inquiry disclosed the Appellant's income from known and legitimate sources during the period of checking as Rs.94,28,605/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Five only). For the same period, the Appellant was found to have amassed assets including living expenses worth Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine only). The Appellant is said to have amassed assets including expenses of around Rs.21,74,064/- (Twenty One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Sixty Four only) more than his known income. This is said to be the disproportionate assets in question. The Inquiry Report was forwarded to the Government on 20.03.2023 by the Joint Director, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment and directions were issued vide Demi-Government Letter dated 20.04.2023 issued by the Vigilance Department, Government of U.P. for institution of criminal proceedings against the Appellant. Consequent to this, the present FIR was registered against the Appellant based on the complaint of Inspector, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Sector, Ayodhya."
62. The Apex Court based on the documentary records and declaration made by the appellant in Income Tax Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 48/51 Returns filed for the relevant assessment year, has considered the same in paragraphs no. 9, 10 and 11, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"9. We are of the view that the Appellant's wife's income must be considered as well while calculating the total income and assets. Both the Appellant and his wife have filed the relevant income tax returns in order to show their respective incomes and assets. The Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit have not denied these income tax returns or alleged them to be forged or fabricated. Therefore, when a public servant is submitting his income tax returns, they should be presumed to be true and correct. If you duly consider the income tax returns of the Appellant and his wife for the check period of the year 1996-2020, the total income is coming up to be Rs.1,21,06,268/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight only) which is in fact more than the assets amounting to Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine only) which is said to be the disproportionate assets in question under the present FIR.
10. Further, we have considered that the check period is from the year 1996 to 2020, which is almost twenty five years. It must be taken into account that over such a long period of time, there is inflation and a natural progression in the changing economy that affects the value of assets such as property. This can understandably lead to discrepancies in declaring the value of assets over the years. Therefore, there should be a more dynamic approach while considering an individual's income and assets over the span of two decades, such as in the present case. The notion that the declared value of an asset such as property or gold will remain static is flawed. This has to be considered while examining an individual's assets and income while making a determination regarding disproportionate assets. Such an examination needs to reflect such adjustments and changes as is natural with the progression of time.
11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such as these where disproportionate assets are being dealt with, the amounts under scrutiny cannot be looked at in the same manner as one would do a Bank statement or daily ledger of income and expenditure. The scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as that when you are examining declared assets and the income of an individual over such a long period of time. There has to be a certain margin that is given while making such an assessment as there are invariably economical fluctuations that would have taken Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 49/51 place, especially over the course of nearly twenty-five years. It is crucial to have a nuanced appreciation of how time and economic conditions affect asset value in such cases."
63. In sum, the Apex Court concluded that "the scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as that when you are examining declared assets and the income of an individual over such a long period of time. There has to be a certain margin that is given while making such an assessment as there are invariably economical fluctuations that would have taken place, especially over the course of nearly twenty-five years."
64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Singh reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 870 relying on its earlier judgment passed in State of Bhajan Lal (supra), has observed that "it is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior motive."
65. In normal course, this Court would have directed the petitioner, who is presently posted as Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, to file his objection along with all the documents regarding the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 50/51 properties owned by him and his family members, but no disclosure of credible information or material evidences before lodging of the FIR was made and there is no denial on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the Income Tax Returns in order to show that the respective returns filed by the petitioner along with his wife for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2024-25, at the same time, no consideration of the fact during the Assessment Year from 1996, the petitioner had joined the Government Services and his declaration made in accordance with the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976, in spite of having thoroughly described their source of income and expenditure and the impeccable evidences, which have been specifically taken note of in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit in respect of the income and expenditure of the petitioner along with his wife. At the same time, in course of the departmental enquiry, the Superintendent of Police, S.V.U., and Investigating Officer, DY. S.P. upon their examination and in their cross-examination have admitted that the investigating agency in support of the allegation, are not possessed of any material evidence to support the allegation that discloses that the asset in the name of the petitioner and his family members is disproportionate asset to the known source of income. In Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26158 of 2025 dt.21-11-2025 51/51 absence of evidence of disproportionate asset, the allegation as alleged in the FIR cannot sustain.
66. In view of the observation(s)/discussion(s) made hereinabove and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed hereinabove, the FIR in connection with Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set-aside in respect of the petitioner.
67. The present quashing application stands disposed of.
Niraj/-
(Purnendu Singh, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 08.12.2025
Transmission Date 08.12.2025