Sudarshan Ram vs The State Of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48422 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010368282016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-1992 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Sudarshan Ram, Son of Late Damarhi Ram, Resident of Village-Shishwan
Dhala Laxmipur, P.S.-Siwan, District-Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-10-2026
The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short
Cr.P.C. ) for quashing the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate ( in short S.D.J.M. ),
Nawada in connection with Warisliganj P.S. Case No. 162 of
1992, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking his
discharge from the proceeding was rejected. The petitioner
further seeks quashing of the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Nawada in Criminal Revision No.
85 of 2014, whereby the revision preferred against the aforesaid
order was dismissed and the order of the learned S.D.J.M. was
affirmed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
2/29
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Sinha, the then In-charge Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre, Warisliganj, submitted a written report
alleging financial irregularities in the preparation, passing and
disbursement of establishment/salary bills of the said Primary
Health Centre. It was alleged that Mathura Prasad, who was
posted as Head Clerk and was engaged in preparation of the
relevant bills, had committed irregularities in the salary bill for
the month of October, 1992. Upon scrutiny of the relevant
records and bills, an excess amount was allegedly found to have
been drawn, which was subsequently alleged to have resulted in
misappropriation of Rs.31,801/-.
3. It is alleged that the aforesaid irregularity came
to light during examination of the relevant bills, including Bill
No. 76/92-93, Bill No. 77/92-93 and 78/92-93 that the excess
amount had been withdrawn in respect of the salary bills for the
months of July to September, 1992. The petitioner, who was
functioning as the Treasury Officer, was subsequently
implicated on the allegation that he had also connived in the
alleged misappropriation of the Government money.
4. On the basis of the written report, Warisliganj
P.S. Case No. 162 of 1992 was instituted on 12.11.1992 for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
3/29
offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short I.P.C. ).
5. During investigation, the investigating agency,
finding substantial evidence against the petitioner, submitted
charge-sheet on 02.03.2007 under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467,
468, 120-B vide Charge-sheet No. 26/07, alleging his
involvement in the alleged misappropriation of the government
money.
6. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of
offence under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B Vide
order dated 18.04.2007 and proceeded with the trial, whereafter
the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the instant case, contending that
there is no evidence collected during investigation, which could
show complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime.
7. The learned S.D.J.M., Nawada, however,
rejected the discharge petition vide order dated 17.11.2014,
which was subsequently affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Nawada, by order dated 24.02.2016 in Criminal Revision No.
85 of 2014, where the petitioner has challenged the order of the
learned Trial Court.
8. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
4/29
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and
there is no material collected during investigation to establish
his involvement in the alleged misappropriation. It is submitted
that the petitioner was posted as Treasury Officer and his role in
relation to an establishment bill was limited. Under the relevant
provisions of the Bihar Treasury Code and the Bihar Board's
Miscellaneous Rules, the primary responsibility for preparation
and verification of establishment bills rests upon the Drawing
and Disbursing Officer and the concerned bill clerk/accountant.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner was not named in the FIR and, significantly, it was the
petitioner himself who had raised an objection on 09.11.1992,
thereby bringing the alleged irregularity to light. It is contended
that, despite there being no material showing his participation in
the alleged offence, the investigating agency mechanically
arrayed him as an accused and submitted charge-sheet against
him.
10. Learned Senior Advocate argues that perusal of
the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation does
not disclose the name or involvement of the petitioner.
According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
5/29
merely on the basis of presumption and conjecture, without any
evidence showing that he had connived with any other person or
had participated in the alleged misappropriation of Government
money. It is thus argued that the basic ingredients of the
offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out from the
materials available on record.
11. Learned Senior Advocate, ultimately, submits
that there is also an apparent discrepancy in the amount
allegedly misappropriated, pointing out that while the actual
amount referred to is Rs.26,940/-, the impugned orders refer to
an amount of Rs.31,801/-. It is therefore urged that the orders
passed by the learned courts below have been made without
proper consideration of the materials on record and that
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
12. Mrs. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State opposes the application and submits that
the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima
facie case against the petitioner, who was functioning as the
Treasury Officer and was connected with the processing and
passing of the relevant bills. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
defence regarding his limited role and the objection allegedly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
6/29
raised by him are matters for consideration during trial.
13. She submits that the investigation culminated in
submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and, at the
stage of discharge, meticulous appreciation of the evidence is
not warranted. The learned courts below have rightly declined to
discharge the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is called
for in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the State.
None appears on behalf of complainant/opposite party No. 2
despite valid service of notice.
15. The principal questions, which fall for
consideration are:-
“(i) Whether the allegations and the
materials relied upon in the present case disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged against
the petitioner; and
(ii) Whether continuation of the criminal
proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court.”
16. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court and to secure the ends of justice. However, such
jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with due
circumspection. The High Court is not expected to conduct a
detailed examination of disputed facts or undertake a mini-trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
7/29
while considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings.
17. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque , reported in (2005) 1 SCC 122 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“The High Court should not, in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482,
embark upon an enquiry into whether the
evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of the evidence the
allegations are not sustainable, for this is the
function of the trial Judge.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. , reported in (2020) 17 SCC 595 , has
conclusively laid down, in paragraphs 15, 17, 18 & 19, the
parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following
words:-
“15. In exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 it is not permissible for the
Court to act as if it were a trial court. The
court is only to be prima facie satisfied about
existence of sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. For that limited purpose,
the court can evaluate materials and
documents on record, but it cannot appreciate
the evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting
the accused.
17. The High Court may have an
obligation to intervene under Section 482 of
the Code in cases where manifest error has
been committed by the Magistrate in issuing
process despite the fact that the alleged acts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
8/29
did not at all constitute offences. Reference
may be made to S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar. However, it is important to remember
that while exercising powers under this
Section, the High Court does not function as a
court of appeal or revision.
18. The power under Section 482
CrPC should not be exercised to stifle
legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if the
basic ingredients of the offence g alleged are
altogether absent, the criminal proceedings
may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
19. It is well settled that where
the allegations set out in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is
open to the High Court, exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, to
quash the order passed by the Magistrate
taking cognizance of the offence. Reference
may be made to M.A.A. Annamalai v. State of
Karnatakas, Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of
Bihar and Nagawwa v. V.S. Konjalgi. The
inherent power under Section 482 is intended
to prevent the abuse of the process of the court
and to secure the ends of justice. Such power
cannot be exercised to do something which is
expressly barred under the Code. Reference
may be made to Dharampal v. Ramshri.”
19. The principles emerging from the aforesaid
decisions make it clear that the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court is not intended to adjudicate upon the defence of an
accused at the threshold. Where the allegations and the material
relied upon by the prosecution disclose the essential ingredients
of the offences alleged, the proceedings ordinarily ought not to
be quashed merely because the accused puts forward an
alternative explanation or disputes his involvement.
20. Section 409 of the I.P.C. provides for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
9/29
offence of criminal breach of trust by, inter alia , a public
servant. The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are
set out in Section 405 of the I.P.C. at this stage it is germane to
quote the ingredients:-
“a) the accused was entrusted with
property, or entrusted with dominion over
property:
(b) the accused had dishonestly
misappropriated or converted to their own use
that property, or dishonestly used or disposed
of that property or wilfully suffer any other
person to do so; and
(c) such misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal should be in
violation of any direction of law prescribing
the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract which the
person had made, touching the discharge of
such trust.
21. In other words, for the invocation of the offence
of criminal breach of trust, it is expedient that the use of
disposal of the property is made by a persons entrusted with or
who has dominion over the property. Furthermore, such an act
must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any
direction of law or any contract, express or implied, relating to
carrying out the trust.
22. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, the prosecution allegation relates to the alleged
excess withdrawal of salary amounts through discrepancies in
the salary bills prepared by the Head Clerk. The petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
10/29
however, was posted as Treasury Officer and was associated
with the scrutiny and processing of the relevant bills. Whether
he had the requisite dominion over the relevant property and
whether his conduct, if any, was accompanied by dishonest
intention must be examined in the context of the materials
collected during investigation. The petitioner’s contention that
his role was limited to the scrutiny of salary bills does not, by
itself, conclusively establish the absence of criminal liability.
23. The petitioner relies upon the objection
allegedly raised on 09.11.1992 concerning the salary bill,
although such a circumstance may be relevant to his defence, its
evidentiary significance cannot be determined in isolation from
the other materials relied upon by the prosecution. It would not
be appropriate, at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, to
treat the said circumstance, as conclusive proof of the
petitioner’s innocence without examining the complete record.
24. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of him being
innocent and the whistle-blower, gets falsified, if one goes
through the materials and evidence collected in course of
investigation as contained in the case diary of the case.
25. Paragraph 108 of the case diary contains the
statement of the In-charge Medical Officer of Primary Health
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
11/29
Centre, Warisliganj, who has described, in detail, the modus
operandi and the manner in which the embezzlement has been
done by the Assistant working in the Primary Health Centre,
namely, Mathura Prasad, in connivance with the petitioner being
Treasury Officer. This paragraph contains, in detail, the various
pay-slip numbers and bill numbers, on which, false amounts
have been mentioned against the due and sanctioned amounts
and that was accordingly presented and got cleared by the
Treasury Office. These bills are with respect to payment of
salary, other allowances and deduction to be made in the
General Provident Fund (GPF).
26. It has also come that the petitioner vide his
letter No. 8, dated 08.01.1993, has virtually admitted that he
could not punctiliously examined the bills submitted by the
Family Health Centre at the time of clearance on account of
paucity of time.
27. Further, paragraphs 113 to 122 of the case diary
contain, in details, the mode, manner and mechanism through
which the Government funds have been embezzled and if one
goes through the statement and the documentary evidence
mentioned therein, the role of the petitioner being Treasury
Officer, in passing the wrongful amount, against the due and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
12/29
sanctioned amount becomes evident and appears to be collusive
in nature.
28. The paragraphs of case diary as mentioned,
hereinabove, also contain the details that there are two amounts
mentioned in the bill and at the time of final calculation of each
billed amount, the amount was enhanced, which does not match
with the amount mentioned in the bill and without verifying the
said fact, the Treasurer used to clear all those bills, thereby
facilitating the swindling and embezzlement of the Government
funds.
29. If the role of the petitioner is examined and
analyzed in view of the evidence collected in course of
investigation, as mentioned hereinabove, it can unequivocally
be said that he was definitely in collusion with the officers and
staff of the Primary Health Centre, in facilitating the
embezzlement of Govenrment fund by clearing the bill, ignoring
the wrong calculation and totaling of the bill amount. The
petitioner cannot claim to have been falsely implicated in the
backdrop of the evidence collected in course of the
investigation.
30. Thus, the question whether the prosecution can
establish the requisite ingredients of Section 409 of the I.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
13/29
against the petitioner must be considered in accordance with
law.
31. The offence of cheating punishable under
Section 420 of the I.P.C. requires deception and dishonest
inducement for better understanding it is apposite to quote the
ingredients of section 420 of the I.P.C.:-
“1. The ingredients to constitute an
offence of cheating are as follows:
1.1. There should be fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of a person by
deceiving him:
1.1.a. The person so induced should
be intentionally induced to deliver any
property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or
1.1.b. The person so induced should
be intentionally do or omit if he were not so
deceived; and
1.2. In cases covered the act or
omission should be one which caused or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or
property.
2. A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential ingredient of the
offence. A person who dishonestly induces
another person to deliver any property is
liable for the offence of cheating. Thus,
3. The ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 420 are as follows:
3.1. A person must commit the
offence of cheating under Section 415; and
3.2. The person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to:
(a) deliver property to any person;
or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed and
capable of being converted into valuable
security.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
14/29
32. In the present case, the prosecution allegations
concern the alleged irregularities in the preparation and
disbursement of salary bills and the excess withdrawal of public
money. The petitioner contends that no specific act of deception
or dishonest inducement has been attributed to him. However,
whether the circumstances surrounding the processing and
scrutiny of the bills disclose the petitioner’s participation in the
alleged acts cannot be conclusively determined merely on the
basis of the assertions made in the present application. The
Court, at this stage, is required to examine whether the
proceedings are liable to be quashed under the settled principles
governing Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and not to record a final
finding on the petitioner’s guilt or innocence.
33. The petitioner’s reliance upon his official duties
and the objection allegedly raised by him may constitute
relevant matters for his defence. Nevertheless, those
circumstances do not, by themselves, warrant termination of the
proceedings without examination of the prosecution materials.
The applicability of Section 420 of the I.P.C. must ultimately be
assessed in accordance with its essential ingredients and the
evidence available in the case.
34. The offence of forgery and making of false
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
15/29
document as defined under Sections 463 and 464 of the I.P.C.
are extracted herein below for ready reference:
“ 463. Forgery .-Whoever makes
any false documents or false electronic
record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or
injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any
person to part with property, or to enter into
any express or implied contract, or with
intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document .-A
person is said to make a false document or
false electronic record:
First-Who dishonestly or
fraudulently-
(a) makes, sign, seals or executes
a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any
electronic record or part of any electronic
record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on
any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the
execution of a document or the authenticity
of the digital signature, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document
or part of document, electronic record or
digital signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority or a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation
or otherwise, alters a document or an
electronic record in any material part
thereof, after it has been made, executed or
affixed with digital signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether
such person be living or dead at the time of
such alteration; or Thirdly-who dishonestly
or fraudulently causes any person, sign,
seal, execute or alter a document or an
electronic record or to affix his digital
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
16/29
signature on any electronic record knowing
that such person by reason of unsoundness
of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by
reason of deception practiced upon him, he
does not know the contents of the document
or electronic record or the nature of the
alteration."
35. It is apposite to note that to attract offence of
Section 467 and 468 of the I.P.C., the prosecution must establish
that the accused made a false document within the meaning of
Section 463 and 464 of the I.P.C., with intent to cheat.
36. The petitioner contends that no specific act of
making, signing, executing or altering any false document has
been attributed to him. The allegations, as set out in the petition,
primarily concern discrepancies in the salary bills prepared by
the Head Clerk. However, the question whether any document
was forged, the circumstances in which it was prepared or
processed, and whether the petitioner had any role or knowledge
in that regard must be examined with reference to the relevant
documents and the materials collected during investigation.
37. The absence of a specific allegation of forgery
in the petitioner’s own account does not, by itself, establish that
the entire prosecution case is liable to be quashed. The Court
cannot, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, undertake a
final determination of the genuineness of the relevant
documents or the petitioner’s knowledge and intention where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
17/29
such matters require consideration and threadbare analysis of
the prosecution record. The petitioner’s contentions in this
regard are, therefore, insufficient on their own to justify
interference with the impugned orders.
38. Section 419 of the I.P.C. provides punishment
for cheating by personation, the ingredients of which are
governed by Section 416 of the I.P.C. Section 416 of the I.P.C.
defines cheating by personation, which is a punishable offence
under section 419 of the I.P.C. It is an aggravated form of
cheating which consists of impersonating another by pretending
to be some other person or knowingly substituting one person
for another or representing to the any other person other than the
said person really is. It is to be borne in mind that personation
by itself is no offence but when a person fraudulently and
dishonestly does a fraudulent act and represents himself as
another person, section 416 of the I.P.C. will be attracted.
39. The petitioner’s application principally
challenges his implication in connection with the alleged excess
withdrawal of salary amounts and relies upon his official role as
Treasury Officer. The precise basis for invoking Section 419 of
the I.P.C. must be assessed with reference to the allegations and
the materials forming part of the prosecution record. At this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
18/29
stage, the petitioner has not established, merely through the
grounds advanced in the application, that the proceedings as a
whole fall within the recognised categories warranting quashing.
The applicability of this provision must be determined by the
competent court in accordance with law and on the basis of the
relevant materials.
40. To constitute an offence under Section 120(B)
of the I.P.C., the specific ingredients must be satisfied :
“i. Conspiracy is when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an
illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
ii. The offence of criminal conspiracy is
an exception to the general law, where intent
alone does not constitute crime. It is the
intention to commit a crime and join hands with
persons having the same intention. Conspiracy
is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely
possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred
from the circumstances and the conduct of the
accused.
iii. Conspiracy is hatched in private or
in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, the
existence of the conspiracy and its objects have
to be inferred from the circumstances and the
conduct of the accused.
iv. Where in pursuance of the
agreement, the conspirators commit offenses
individually or adopt illegal means to do a
legal act that has a nexus to the object of the
conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such
offenses even if some of them have not actively
participated in the commission of those
offenses.”
41. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
19/29
case, the prosecution alleges irregularities in the preparation and
disbursement of salary bills, resulting in the alleged excess
withdrawal of public money. The petitioner contends that no
prior meeting of mind or prior understanding between him and
the principal accused, has been disclosed and that he had, in
fact, raised an objection concerning the salary bill on
09.11.1992. The said contention cannot be treated as conclusive
at this stage without examining the materials collected during
investigation. Whether the circumstances surrounding the
preparation, processing and disbursement of the salary bills,
disclose any knowing participation by the petitioner, in a
common unlawful design, is a matter which requires
consideration in the context of the complete record and which
can only be done during trial.
42. The absence of direct evidence of an agreement,
by itself, would not be sufficient to discard a prosecution
allegation of conspiracy at the threshold. Equally, mere
association with the processing of salary bills or the holding of
an official position cannot, by itself, establish criminal
conspiracy. The decisive consideration is whether the materials
relied upon by the prosecution disclose circumstances prima
facie connecting the petitioner with the alleged common design.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
20/29
The petitioner’s assertion that no such connection exists cannot
be accepted as a final conclusion without an examination of the
prosecution case in accordance with law.
43. At this stage, the power of the Trial Court to
consider the discharge application of an accused under Section
239 of the Cr.P.C. has been delineated and laid down under
Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the trial of the
warrant cases by the Magistrate, wherein Sections 238 to 243
prescribes procedure to deal with the cases instituted on a police
report. Section 239 stipulates as to the circumstances and
condition under which the accused shall be discharged. Section
239 lays down as follows:-
“ Section 239. When accused shall be
discharged - If, upon considering the police
report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination, if
any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks
necessary and after giving the prosecution and
the accused an opportunity of being heard, the
Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the
accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”
The core ingredients, thus as appears from the
aforesaid sections, are:-
(i) Consideration of police report and
documents is sine qua non for the learned
Magistrate, in seisin of, the case wherein he
has to examine the police report and all
documents annexed therewith under Section
173 Cr.P.C.
(ii) Option and discretion of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
21/29
Magistrate to examine the accused if he deems
it necessary for the aforesaid purpose
including affording an opportunity to the
accused and the prosecution of fair hearing on
the issue; and
(iii) Thereafter having applied his
judicial mind, the learned Magistrate is
required to pass a reasoned and speaking
order, keeping in view, the aforesaid materials
as mandated in law.
44. Thus, the learned Magistrate while exercising
his power and jurisdiction under Section 239 has to base his
order primarily and solely on the prosecution materials and is
not allowed to conduct enquiry on meticulous evaluation of the
materials so submitted before him, by the investigating agency.
45. If materials placed on record by the
investigating agency raises a strong or grave suspicion that the
accused committed the offence, charges shall be framed, but on
the contrary, if the evidence is so weak that it fails to make out a
basic case of raising a strong suspicion, discharge appears to be
the proper course of action under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C..
46. In other words, the obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises, when the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be ‘ groundless ’. The
stipulations under Section 239 Cr.P.C. provide for discharge
being made before the recording of evidence and the
consideration as to whether the charges has to be framed or not,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
22/29
is required to be made on the basis of the records of the case,
including the documents and oral hearing of the accused and the
prosecution or the police report, the documents sent along with
it and examination of the accused, after affording an opportunity
to the parties to be heard.
47. It has been the settled judicial principle that at
the stage of consideration of discharge, the Court is not required
to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by
the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage, is
that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
Meaning thereby the materials should be sufficient to enable the
Court to initiate the criminal trial against the accused.
48. The nature of evaluation to be made by the
Court at the stage of framing of charge came up for
consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Onkarnath
Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 561 , wherein it has been held that at that stage,
the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence
of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it
is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the
materials on record.
49. In the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
23/29
Som Nath Thapa & Ors. , reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659, the
three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held :-
“ 32. ………. if on the basis of materials
on record, a court could come to the conclusion
that commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the court were to
think that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
the accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of a
charge, probative value of the materials on
record cannot be gone into; the materials
brought on record by the prosecution has to be
accepted as true at that stage.”
and, subsequently, in the case of State of MP vs.
Mohanlal Soni , reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held:-
“ 7. The crystallised judicial view is
that at the stage of framing charge, the court
has to prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the
accused.”
50. Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that if the
Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused. The word
‘ groundless’ , in my considered opinion, means that there must
be no ground for presuming that the accused has committed the
offence. The word ‘ groundless’ used in Section 239 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
24/29
Cr.P.C. means that the materials placed before the Court do not
make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case
against the accused.
51. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR 1972 SC 545 , this
Court has stated about the ambit of Section 251(A)(2) of the
Cr.P.C. 1898, which is in pari materia with the wordings used in
Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. as follows:-
“It cannot be said that the Court at the
stage of framing the charge has not to apply its
judicial mind for considering whether or not
there is a ground for presuming the commission
of the offence by the accused. The order framing
the charges does substantially affect the
person's liberty and it cannot be said that the
Court must automatically frame the charge
merely because the prosecuting authorities by
relying on the documents referred to in S. 173
consider it proper to institute the case. The
responsibility of framing the charges is that of
the Court and it has to judicially consider the
question of doing so. Without fully adverting to
the material on the record it must not blindly
adopt the decision of the prosecution."
52. The provisions of discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. fell for consideration of this Court in K. Ramakrishna
and others v. State of Bihar and Anr. , reported in (2000) 8 SCC
547 , and it was held that the questions regarding the sufficiency
or reliability of the evidence to proceed further are not required
to be considered by the trial court under Section 239 and the
High Court under Section 482. It was observed as follows:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
25/29
“ 4. The trial court under Section 239
and the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon
to embark upon an inquiry as to whether
evidence in question is reliable or not or
evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed
further or not. However, if upon the admitted
facts and the documents relied upon by the
complainant or the prosecution and without
weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made
out, the criminal proceedings instituted against
the accused are required to be dropped or
quashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259]
the High Court or the Magistrate are also not
supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical
approach to sieve the complaint through a
colander of finest gauzes for testing the
ingredients of offence with which the accused is
charge. Such an endeavour may be justified
during trial but not during the initial stage.”
53. The ambit and scope of exercise of power under
Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. are, therefore, fairly well
settled. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section
239 arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be ‘ groundless’ . The Section mandates that the
Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if
after:-
(i) considering the police report and the
documents sent with it under Section 173,
Cr.P.C.
(ii) examining the accused, if necessary,
and
(iii) giving the prosecution and the
accused an opportunity of being heard.
54. He considers the charge against the accused to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
26/29
be ‘ groundless ’, i.e, either there is no legal evidence or that the
facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed
evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the
possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any
exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be
undertaken at this stage, the only consideration at the stage of
Section 239/240 being as to whether the allegation/charge is
‘ groundless ’.
55. This would not be the stage for weighing the
pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for
sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise at
this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and
the documents to decide whether the allegations against the
accused can be said to be ‘groundless’ .
56. The word ‘ground’ according to the Black's
Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context
of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the
basis for charging the accused or foundation for the
admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word
‘groundless’ would connote no basis or foundation in evidence .
The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining
whether the charge should be considered groundless is that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
27/29
where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would
make out no case whatsoever.
57. Having considered the rival submissions and
the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases afore-mentioned, this Court is of the considered view that
the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot
be exercised merely because the petitioner disputes the
allegations or advances a defence concerning the nature of his
official duties.
58. The discrepancy concerning the amount
allegedly withdrawn, as referred to in the petition and the
impugned orders, also does not, by itself, furnish sufficient
ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The relevant
amount and the circumstances surrounding the alleged
withdrawal may be clarified from the original record. The
existence of such a discrepancy cannot, without more, lead to
the conclusion that the prosecution is liable to be terminated at
the threshold.
59. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s
case has recognised that the power to quash criminal
proceedings may be exercised where the allegations fall within
the illustrative categories identified therein. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
28/29
petitioner must demonstrate that the facts of his case justify such
interference. This Court is not persuaded to conclude, on the
grounds urged in the present application alone, that continuation
of the proceedings would necessarily amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court.
60. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
finds no sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned orders.
The contentions advanced by the petitioner do not, at this stage,
warrant interference with the order rejecting the discharge
petition or the revisional order affirming the same.
61. Thus, the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, in
connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 162 of 1992, and the
order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Nawada, in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2014, are not interfered
with.
62. Accordingly, the present application stands
dismissed.
63. It is clarified that the observations made herein
are confined to the adjudication of the present application and
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48422 of 2016 dt.15-10-2026
29/29
ultimate merit of the prosecution case. The petitioner shall be at
liberty to raise all permissible factual and legal defences before
the learned court below, which shall consider the same in
accordance with law and on the basis of the materials available
on record, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.
64. Generally, the Court does not issue directions
for concluding the trial within a specified period of time, but
considering the long pendency of the case, which is pending for
trial since 2014, whereas the case emanates from Warisliganj
P.S. Case No. 162 of 1992, this Court, compelled by the
circumstances and inordinate long pendency of this case, directs
the learned Trial Court, in seisin , with the case to conclude the
trial on day-to-day basis without granting unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties and make all out endeavour
to conclude the same within a period of six months henceforth.
65. The interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off accordingly.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Rakesh/Praveen-II
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.07.2026
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date 18.10.2026