Arun Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61200 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2021 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Arun Kumar Singh S/O Late Shivdhari Singh Resident of Village- Kopwa,
P.S- Dumraon, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv.
Mr. Atal Bihar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Alok Kr. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-08-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by learned C.J.M., Rohtas
at Sasaram, in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.
156 of 2021, whereby cognizance has been taken for the
offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 71, 477A and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The facts of the case arising out of a written
report dated 01.03.2021 of the Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Sasaram are that pursuant to his letter dated
13.08.2020, the District Magistrate constituted a Committee
headed by Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas to conduct an
enquiry regarding seven departmental projects executed in Ward

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
2/17
No.11 and after inquiry, report was submitted. The District
Magistrate vide letter dated 19.02.2021 directed that in the
enquiry it transpired that although the concerned projects have
been shown to be executed many years ago from different funds
but in the measurement book, it has been shown that the
projects have been completed in the year 2019-20, which
appears to be a case of siphoning off Government fund.
Accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the
petitioner and other accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted,
at the outset, that the present case came to be lodged against the
petitioner who was then posted as Junior Engineer and he
retired from his post on 31.12.2019 and it is only in the year
2020 that a report was submitted, with regard to irregularities in
seven projects and F.I.R., based on the same, was lodged after
more than one year of his retirement.
5. It has also been submitted that the projects in
question were executed during tenure of one Mahant Pandey
who was then the Junior Engineer in the Organization and the
measurement book pertaining to the projects in question were
prepared by him. It is only on the transfer of Mahant Pandey
that the petitioner was placed on deputation as Junior Engineer

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
3/17
and upon instructions of the then, Executive Officer of Nagar
Parishad, Sasaram, he was made to sign five remaining
measurement books.
6. It is further brought to the notice of this Court
that on 11.01.2021 an F.I.R. bearing Sasaram Town P.S. Case
No.35/2021 was registered with regard to the same occurrence
in which the present petitioner was made an accused. The
investigation of the said case is still pending and till date no
charge-sheet has been submitted by the police in the aforesaid
case.
7. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the
present F.I.R, being Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.156/2021
dated 01.03.2021 lodged by the Executive Officer of Nagar
Parishad, Sasaram amounts to a second F.I.R. being lodged
subsequent to Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.35/2021 lodged by
the Assistant Engineer, BUDCO, Rohtas, Sasaram against the
petitioner on the same cause of action. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance in the present case vide order dated
17.08.2021. The only difference in the two FIRs is that they
have been lodged by two different persons and in the present
F.I.R. , the informant of the earlier F.I.R. (35/2021) has also
been made an accused. But for making him an accused, a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
4/17
separate F.I.R. was not required, rather material against him
could be brought during investigation or at any other stage to
implead him as an accused.
8. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of
T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. , reported in (2001) 6
SCC 181: ( 2001) 6 SCC OnLine SC 805 , Ambitbhai
Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI & Anr. reported in 2013(2) PLJR
373 (SC) : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 310 and Awadesh Kumar
Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha & Anr. vs. State of Bihar , reported
in 2016 SCC OnLine SC 17 to contend that successive FIRs in
respect of an offence or different offences committed in the
course of the same transaction, is not only impermissible but is
also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. Learned counsel has further raised the argument
relating to failure of prosecution for want of sanction. With
regard to the present proposition, learned counsel has relied
upon a judgment of Kalicharan Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa
reported in (1998) 6 SCC 411 wherein it has been held that
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is applicable even in cases where a
retired public servant is sought to be prosecuted.
10. Besides apprising this Court of the fact that the
stage of the case has not changed, it has also been pointed that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
5/17
the cases of two other co-accused persons, being those of
Kumari Himani and Jitendra Kumar was considered by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and also this Court vide orders
dated 24.08.2023 and 21.07.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.9625
of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No.17930 of 2023 respectively, and the
prosecution as against the co-accused persons including the
order taking cognizance have been quashed and the case of this
petitioner is squarely covered by the two other judgments of this
Court and there would be no legal justification in allowing the
prosecution to continue as against the present petitioner.
11. Learned APP for the State has however
opposed the present application.
12. I have heard rival contention of the petitioner
and have also gone through the documents placed on record.
Upon perusal of the same it appears that earlier an F.I.R.
bearing Sasaram P.S. Case No.35/2021 dated 11.01.2021 was
lodged by one of the co-accused Jitendra Kumar, Assistant
Engineer, against the petitioner with the accusation of criminal
misappropriation of money relating to work in seven projects
and other accused Kumari Himani, Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Sasaram was also made accused with the present
petitioner with allegation of collusion with the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
6/17
Subsequent allegation had been made with regard to forging the
signature of the informant by the petitioner in the said projects
for the purpose of criminal misappropriation. The said F.I.R.
was lodged under Section 419, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 470 of
IPC. It is informed that in the said F.I.R. the investigation has
yet not concluded.
13. The present F.I.R. was lodged within two
months of the earlier F.I.R. under the same Sections of IPC but
additionally the informant of FIR (35/2021), Jitendra Kumar,
Assistant Engineer, was also added in the accused column along
with Kumari Himani, Executive Officer, besides the present
petitioner lodged by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Sasaram. It is thus clear from perusal of the both FIRs that issue
in question is the embezzlement of funds in the projects in
question. Thus on the question of present case being a second
F.I.R. on the same cause of action needs to be examined in view
of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. In the case of T.T. Antony (supra) scheme of
Cr.P.C. has been discussed and has been stated that even after
filing of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. upon
investigation, if any further information or material transpires,
a fresh F.I.R. is not required to be registered rather the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
7/17
investigating agency is empowered to make further
investigation, normally with the leave of the Court and forward
the same to the concerned Court. It has thus been succinctly
held that there cannot be any second F.I.R and consequently
there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent
information with regard to same occurrence or incident.
Paragraph nos. 20 and 27 of T.T. Antony (supra) is reproduced
hereinbelow :-
“ 20. From the above discussion it follows
that under the scheme of the provisions of
Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and
173 CrPC only the earliest or the first
information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 Cr.PC. Thus there can be no second
FIR and consequently there can be no fresh
investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same cognizable
offence or the same occurrence or incident giving
rise to one or more cognizable offences. On
receipt of information about a cognizable offence
or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence
or offences and on entering the FIR in the station
house diary, the officer in charge of a police
station has to investigate not merely the
cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also
other connected offences found to have been
committed in the course of the same transaction
or the same occurrence and file one or more
reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
8/17
27………..However, the sweeping power of
investigation does not warrant subjecting a
citizen each time to fresh investigation by the
police in respect of the same incident, giving rise
to one or more cognizable offences, consequent
upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or
after filing the final report under Section 173(2)
CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of
Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse
of the statutory power of investigation in a given
case. In our view a case of fresh investigation
based on the second or successive FIRs, not
being a counter-case, filed in connection with the
same or connected cognizable offence alleged to
have been committed in the course of the same
transaction and in respect of which pursuant to
the first FIR either investigation is under way or
final report under Section 173(2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for
exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the
case of Ambitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), taking note of
the law laid down by the T.T. Antony (supra) that there cannot
be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence, has
proceeded to hold that whenever any further information is
received by Investigating Agency, it is always in furtherance of
the first F.I.R. and also concluded that filing of the second
F.I.R., fresh charge-sheet, is violative of fundamental rights

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
9/17
under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India since
the same relates to an offence with respect of which an F.I.R.
had already been instituted and the Court had taken cognizance
thereof. Paragraph no.58.3 of the said judgment is being quoted
hereinbelow :-
“ 58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he
comes into possession of further information or
material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR,
he is empowered to make further investigation
normally with the leave of the court and where
during further investigation, he collects further
evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to
forward the same with one or more further
reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of
Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the
provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162,
169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or
the first information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements
of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no
second FIR and, consequently, there can be no
fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same cognizable
offence or the same occurrence or incident giving
rise to one or more cognizable offences.”

16. In yet another case, decided by the Hon’ble
Apex Court on the aforesaid issue, being in the case of
Awadesh Kumar Jha (supra), once again reiterated law laid
down in the cases of T.T. Antony (supra) and Ambitbhai
Anilchandra Shah (supra) , but on facts it was found that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
10/17
law settled by the cases referred aforementioned, was not
attracted as it was a case of distinct offence.
17. Considering the law laid down by the above
mentioned judicial pronouncements, it is clear that if the cause
of action is the same, any other ancillary information regarding
the incident which has been alleged in the first F.I.R., would
only be an information collected during investigation and no
separate or subsequent F.I.R needs to be lodged, even when it is
informed by some other Authority, as in the present case, being
the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Sasaram. It does not
make much difference as to who is the informant of the case, so
far as the primary issue in the present case relating to
misappropriation of money in the execution of projects, is being
investigated.
18. However, the main ground of challenging the
present prosecution is that no sanction for prosecution has been
obtained and in the absence of any such sanction, order taking
cognizance would not be legally sustainable against the present
petitioner, who is a public servant and the act against him was
purely in discharge of his official duty. This Court has been
informed that the case of similarly situated Executive Officer,
arising out of the present FIR, who was also a drawing and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
11/17
disbursing officer, was quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.9625
of 2022 on the pointed ground of absence of sanction as the
offence alleged was done while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of an official duty. Subsequently, this Court also
quashed the case against the Assistant Engineer vide order dated
21.07.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.17930 of 2023 on similar
ground.
19. This Court thus takes note of the fact that it is
well settled law that prior sanction from the competent authority
as provided under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for
prosecuting a Judge or a Magistrate or a public servant while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
irrespective of the fact that whether such person was still
holding the official position or had ceased to hold the same. In
this regard this Court would gainfully refer to the case of
Kalicharan (supra) wherein reliance has been placed upon the
case of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala , reported in
(1996) 1 SCC 478 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
referring to the Law Commission’s Report observed, that the
expression ‘was’ came to be employed after the expression ‘is’
to make the sanction applicable even in cases where a retired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
12/17
public servant is sought to be prosecuted.
20. Such protection is given so that a public
functionary is not discouraged from performing his bonafide
duties and can do the same without any fear or inhibition. It is
totally a different matter however, when the act complained of,
is not done in the discharge of official duty or in cases where
such fact is seriously contested and the facts are in a mist and
do not clearly reveal the discharge of official duty. In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the case of Gurmeet
Kaur vs. Devender Gupta and Anr. , reported in (2025) 5 SCC
481 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph nos.-
24, 25 and 26 as follows:
“ 24. For ease of reference, Section
197CrPC is extracted as under:
“ 197. Prosecution of Judges and
public servants .—(1) When any person who is or
was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant
not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Government is accused of any
offence alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge
of his official duty, no Court shall take
cognizance of such offence except with the
previous sanction—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as
the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of the Union, of the Central

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
13/17
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as
the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
25. As already noted, the object and purpose of
the said provision is to protect officers and
officials of the State from unjustified criminal
prosecution while they discharge their duties
within the scope and ambit of their powers
entrusted to them. A reading of Section 197CrPC
would indicate that there is a bar for a court to
take cognizance of such offences which are
mentioned in the said provision except with the
previous sanction of the appropriate Government
when the allegations are made against, inter alia,
a public servant.
26. There is no doubt that in the instant case the
appellant herein was a public servant but the
question is, whether, while discharging her duty
as a public servant on the relevant date, there
was any excess in the discharge of the said duty
which did not require the first respondent herein
to take a prior sanction for prosecuting the
appellant herein. In this regard, the salient words
which are relevant under sub-section (1) of
Section 197 are “is accused of any offence
alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of
such offence except with the previous sanction”.
Therefore, for the purpose of application of
Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public
servant is accused of any offence which had been
committed by him in “discharge of his official

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
14/17
duty”. The said expression would clearly indicate
that Section 197CrPC would not apply to a case
if a public servant is accused of any offence
which is dehors or not connected to the discharge
of his or her official duty. However, there are a
line of judgments which have considered this
expression in two different ways which we shall
now advert to.”
21. The aforesaid proposition of law has been
earlier discussed in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer
Hussain reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695 , which has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gurmeet
(supra) and Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. & Anr. , 2025
INSC 267. Paragraph-74 of the case of D. Devaraja (supra) is
quoted hereunder :
“ 74. It is well settled that an application
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code is maintainable to quash proceedings
which are ex facie bad for want of sanction,
frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on
the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears
to have a reasonable relationship with official
duty, where the criminal proceeding is
apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted
with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be
exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent
abuse of process of court.”
22. Thus, the statute, as well as the judicial
pronouncements lay down in unequivocal terms that wherever

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
15/17
an act or omission of a public servant, is indisputably traceable
to the discharge of his official duty, the issue of obtaining
sanction would come to the forefront and non-adherence to the
provision of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before taking of cognizance,
defeats its very purpose. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. Rakesh Sharma & Anr. ,
reported in (2023) 8 SCC 711 while distinguishing between the
statutory requirements with respect to sanction under Section 19
of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., has held in
paragraph no.61 as hereunder:-
“ 61. There is a material difference between the
statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act,
1988 on one hand, and Section 197CrPC, on the
other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively
under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua
the public servant. In cases under the general penal
law against the public servant, the necessity (or
otherwise) of sanction under Section 197CrPC
depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter
case is of the “nexus” between the act of
commission or omission and the official duty of the
public servant. To commit an offence punishable
under law can never be a part of the official duty of
a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to
adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under
Section 197CrPC on such reasoning. The “safe and
sure test”, is to ascertain if the omission or neglect
to commit the act complained of would have made
the public servant answerable for the charge of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
16/17
dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted
“in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable
connection” between the impugned act and the
performance of the official duty, the protective
umbrella of Section 197CrPC cannot be denied, so
long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a
cloak for illicit acts.”
23 . In a very recent judgment in the case of State
by Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.
[2025 INSC 840] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the issue of sanction under Section 197 of the
Cr.P.C., clearly held that protection under the said provision
extends both to serving as well as retired public servants.
Paragraph no.20 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“ 20. The acts of commission of offence in the
discharge of official duties by a public servant,
punishable under the IPC and the PC Act, have
obviously to be dealt with firmly. But Section 197,
Cr.P.C. contemplates protection to responsible
public servants against institution of possible
vexatious criminal proceedings alleged to have
been committed by them while acting or
purporting to act as public servants. Protection
under Section 197, Cr. PC extends both to serving
as well as retired public servants. Prior to taking
cognisance of offences punishable under the IPC,
sanction ought to have been obtained. No sanction
has, admittedly, been obtained and hence we hold
that quashing of the proceedings qua IPC offences
was just and proper.”
24. As per the proposition of law laid down by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61200 of 2024 dt.27-08-2026
17/17
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, coupled with
the fact that there is a direct nexus between the alleged act and
the official duty of the petitioner, he cannot be prosecuted
without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority
and therefore, prosecution of the petitioner is illegal.
25. Upon careful consideration of factual context,
the legal position and also considering that the case of the
similarly situated co-accused has already been quashed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and also by this Court on the
grounds of sanction, which also strictly applies to the case of
the present petitioner, who happens to be the Junior Engineer,
this Court would proceed to quash the order dated 17.08.2021
passed by learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with
Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.156 of 2021, as against the present
petitioner.
26. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.


(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026